














































































Class 

Book. 


-c? 

< i 


Copyright N?_ 


COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 





/ 













THE MINISTER AND 
HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


A. T. ROBERTSON, m.a., d.d., ll.d., litt.d. 



BY PROFESSOR A. T. ROBERTSON 

The Minister and His Greek New Testament. 

A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life 
of Christ. 

Types of Preachers in the New Testament. 

Paul the Interpreter of Christ. 

Practical and Social Aspects of Christianity (Exposi¬ 
tion of James). 

A Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament. 
Studies in Mark’s Gospel. 

A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light 
of Historical Research. 

Syllabus for New Testament Study. 

A Translation of Luke’s Gospel. 

John the Loyal: A Sketch of John the Baptist. 

Epochs in the Life of Jesus. 

Epochs in the Life of Paul. 

The Pharisees and Jesus. The Stone Princeton Lectures 
for 1916. 

Luke the Historian in the Light of Research. 

The Student’s Chronological New Testament. 

The Glory of the Ministry. 

The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John. 

Paul’s Joy in Christ: Studies in Philippians. 

Making Good in the Ministry: A Sketch of John Mark. 
The New Citizenship. 

Commentary on Matthew: The Bible for Home and School. 
Keywords in the Teaching of Jesus. 

Life and Letters of John A. Broadus. 

The Teaching of Jesus Concerning God the Father. 
Studies in the New Testament. 




THE MINISTER AND HIS 
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


BY 


A. T. ROBERTSON, m.a., d.d., ll.d., litt.d. 

M 

PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION, 

SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY 


tva 7 VUT 6 Ka .1 yLVCOCTKTJTe 


) } > 


NEW 



YORK 


GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 




32 

U 


COPYRIGHT, I923, 

BY GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY 


THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 



SEP 17 '23 

© Cl A 7 5 2 9 3 1 



TO MY SISTER 


NELLIE R. McLENDON 









PREFACE 


The present volume of essays is designed for those 
who love the Greek New Testament. That number 
is very large and is increasing rapidly. The drift 
back towards Greek is definite, particularly among 
ministers. In the Southern Baptist Theological 
Seminary, for instance, three hundred young min¬ 
isters were enrolled during the past session in the 
various classes in the Greek New Testament, be¬ 
sides those who had carried such work in previous 
sessions. This is nearly three-fourths of the total 
number of students, and shows conclusively that 
Greek is not dead in this institution. 

The reception given my New Testament gram¬ 
mars proves the same thing. The “Short Gram¬ 
mar” appeared in 1908, and is now in the Sixth 
Edition (American and British), and has been trans¬ 
lated into four languages (Dutch, French, German, 
Italian). The “Grammar of the Greek New Tes¬ 
tament in the Light of Historical Research” ap¬ 
peared July 1, 1914, just a month before the World 
War began. It is now in the Fourth Edition (Amer¬ 
ican and British) in spite of the war, the great size 
and the cost of the book. Evidently the love of 
the Greek New Testament survives among preach¬ 
ers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

On May 1, 1923, I completed thirty-five years of 


IX 


X 


PREFACE 


service as a teacher of the Greek New Testament in 
the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. My 
interest in the subject has grown with each year. 
In November, 1923, I shall be sixty years old, if by 
God’s grace I round out this period. American 
professors do not usually (but Dr. B. L. Gildersleeve 
is over ninety) live so long as their British and con¬ 
tinental compeers (Dr. Theodore Zahn is eighty- 
five), but it is a comfort to me beyond words to 
know that all over the world there are former stu¬ 
dents of mine, some five thousand in all, who are 
teaching the truth as it is in Jesus. And I may be 
allowed a word of felicitation in this my Festjahr to 
all ministers and teachers of the Greek New Testa¬ 
ment everywhere, who revel in the riches of Christ 
in the greatest treasure of all the books of earth, 
the Greek New Testament. 

A. T. Robertson 


Louisville , Kentucky . 


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 


The following journals have courteously 
consented to the use of such chapters as 
first appeared in their pages: The Biblical 
Review , The Expositor (London), The Homi¬ 
letic Review , The Methodist Review (Nash¬ 
ville) 













CONTENTS 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

I 

The Minister’s Use of His Greek 



New Testament. 

15 

II 

Notes on a Specimen Papyrus of the 



First Century A.D. . ... 

29 

III 

The Use of 'TVep in Business Docu- 



MENTS IN THE PAPYRI .... 

35 

IV 

Pictures in Prepositions .... 

43 

V 

The Greek Article and the Deity 



of Christ. 

61 

VI 

The New Testament Use of M17 with 
Hesitant Questions in the Indic- 



ative Mode. 

69 

VII 

Grammar and Preaching .... 

77 

VIII 

Sermons in Greek Tenses 

88 

IX 

John Brown of Haddington or 
Learning Greek Without a 



Teacher . 

103 

X 

The Grammar of the Apocalypse of 



John. 

109 

XI 

The Romance of Erasmus’s Greek 



New Testament. 

115 

XII 

Broadus as Scholar and Preacher. 

118 


XI 









THE MINISTER AND 
HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 





Chapter I 


THE MINISTER’S USE OF HIS GREEK TESTA¬ 
MENT 

SOME KNOWLEDGE OF GREEK POSSIBLE TO ALL 

It ought to be taken for granted that the preacher 
has his Greek Testament. This statement will be 
challenged by many who excuse themselves from 
making any effort to know the Greek New Testa¬ 
ment. I do not say that every preacher should be¬ 
come an expert in his knowledge of the New Testa¬ 
ment Greek. That cannot be expected. I do not 
affirm that no preacher should be allowed to preach 
who does not possess some knowledge of the orig¬ 
inal New Testament. I am opposed to such a re¬ 
striction. But a little is a big per cent, on nothing, 
as John A. Broadus used to say. This is pre¬ 
eminently true of the Greek New Testament. 

There is no sphere of knowledge where one is re¬ 
paid more quickly for all the toil expended. Indeed, 
the Englishman’s Greek Concordance almost makes 
it possible for the man with no knowledge of Greek 
to know something about it, paradoxical as that 
may sound. That would be learning made easy, 
beyond a doubt, and might seem to encourage the 
charlatan and the quack. It is possible for an 
ignoramus to make a parade of a little lumber of 

15 


16 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


learning to the disgust and confusion of his hearers. 
But the chief reason why preachers do not get and 
do not keep up a fair and needful knowledge of the 
Greek New Testament is nothing less than care¬ 
lessness, and even laziness in many cases. They can 
get along somehow without it, and so let it pass or 
let it drop. 

THE LANGUAGE OF THE COMMON MAN 

The New Testament is written in the vernacular 
Koint , which was the language of the common people 
as well as of the cultured in the first century a.d. 
The papyri which have been unearthed by many 
thousands in Egypt give us vivid pictures of the life 
of the age. We thus catch the people in their busi¬ 
ness and pleasures. We have love letters, receipts 
or bills, marriage contracts or divorce decrees, cen¬ 
sus rules and tax lists, anything and everything. 
The New Testament is shown beyond a doubt to be 
a monument of the same vernacular koine. The 
same words jump at us in the most unexpected 
places. The book that is in the vernacular of its 
time has an appeal to men of all times and need 
not be a sealed book because written in Greek. 

If one will read Cobern’s New Archceological Dis¬ 
coveries he will be able to see how much the papyri 
have helped us in our knowledge of the New Tes¬ 
tament. Then let him read Milligan’s The New 
Testament Documents , his Greek Papyri , and his 
charming new volume, Here and There Among the 
Papyri , and his interest will be deepened. If he 
will go on and read Deissmann’s Bible Studies and 


THE MINISTER’S USE OF HIS GREEK TESTAMENT 17 

his Light from the Ancient East , he will have a glow¬ 
ing zeal to push his Greek to some purpose. 

THE REAL NEW TESTAMENT 

The real New Testament is the Greek New Testa¬ 
ment. The English is simply a translation of the 
New Testament, not the actual New Testament. It 
is good that the New Testament has been translated 
into so many languages. The fact that it was writ¬ 
ten in the koin£, the universal language of the time, 
rather than in one of the earlier Greek dialects, 
makes it easier to render into modern tongues. But 
there is much that cannot be translated. It is not 
possible to reproduce the delicate turns of thought, 
the nuances of language, in translation. The fresh¬ 
ness of the strawberry cannot be preserved in any 
extract. This is inevitable. We have, no doubt, 
lost much by not having the original Aramaic say¬ 
ings of Jesus, though He often spoke also in 
Greek. 

But the New Testament itself was composed by 
its authors in Greek, unless Matthew wrote his Gos¬ 
pel first in Aramaic. Papias says that he wrote 
Logia (probably the Q of criticism) in Hebrew (Ara¬ 
maic). Some progress has been made by Dalman 
(The Words of Jesus) and others in the effort to re¬ 
produce the original Aramaic employed by Jesus. 
Dr. C. F. Burney now claims (The Aramaic Origin 
of the Fourth Gospel ) that the Fourth Gospel was 
originally written in Aramaic as Dr. C. C. Torrey 
{Composition and Date of Acts ) argues for Acts i-15- 
In the main we have to rely upon the reports in the 


18 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Greek New Testament which are wonderfully vivid 
and vigorous. 

TRANSLATION NOT ENOUGH 

The preacher cannot excuse himself for his neglect 
of Greek with the plea that the English is plain 
enough to teach one the way of life. That is true, 
and we are grateful that it is so. The Bible is in the 
vernacular and has entered into the very life of the 
modern man. It is impossible to overestimate the 
influence of the King James Version upon the lan¬ 
guage and life of the English-speaking world. Prof. 
William Lyons Phelps of Yale will have nothing to 
do with recent translations because of the literary 
charm of the Authorized Version. But words are 
living things and, like all life, are constantly chang¬ 
ing. Dictionaries run out of date quickly, not 
merely because of new ideas and new words, but 
because the old words change their meanings. The 
Psalmist said that he would “prevent” the morning, 
not stop the light from coming as one wishes he could 
do in the short summer nights, but get up before 
the morning. So “let” is even used in the Author¬ 
ized Version for “hinder” instead of “allow.” 

It was for this reason among others that the re¬ 
visers undertook to make a new translation of the 
English Bible. The American Revisers have re¬ 
vised that. Then we have Weymouth’s Translation 
of the New Testament, The Twentieth Century 
New Testament, and Moffatt’s brilliant New Trans¬ 
lation of the New Testament. We shall have many 
more. They will all have special merit, and they 


THE MINISTER’S USE OF HIS GREEK TESTAMENT 19 


will all fail to bring out all that is in the Greek. 
One needs to read these translations, the more the 
better. Each will supplement the others. But, 
when he has read them all, there will remain a large 
and rich untranslatable element that the preacher 
ought to know. 

THE PREACHER A BIBLE SPECIALIST 

We excuse other men for not having a technical 
knowledge of the Bible. We do not expect all men 
to know the details of medicine, law, banking, rail¬ 
roading. But the preacher cannot be excused from 
an accurate apprehension of the New Testament. 
This is the book that he undertakes to expound. It 
is his specialty, and this he must know whatever else 
he does or does not know. Excuses for neglecting 
the New Testament are only excuses after all. 
Dwight L. Moody made himself at home in the Eng¬ 
lish Bible, and he shook the world. Spurgeon made 
himself efficient in Greek and Hebrew in spite of in¬ 
sufficient schooling. John Knox studied Greek when 
over fifty. Alexander Maclaren’s Expositions of 
Holy Scripture are the wonder of modern preachers 
because he steadily throughout a long life pursued 
his Hebrew and Greek studies. He had consummate 
genius and he added to it fulness of knowledge by 
means of laborious scholarship. One notes the same 
careful scholarship in the preaching of Dr. J. H. 
Jowett. A popular preacher like Dr. G. Campbell 
Morgan is a close and laborious student of Greek 
New Testament grammar. 


20 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ORIGINALITY IN PREACHING 

Every preacher wishes to be original. That is a 
proper desire, within limits. One does not care to 
be bizarre or grotesque. He cannot, if loyal to 
Christ, be original in his creed. But he can be in¬ 
dividual in his grasp of truth and in his presentation 
of his message. Originality is relative after all. 
The ancients have stolen all our best ideas from us. 
But one can be himself. That is precisely what 
people like most about us. 

Now, the Greek New Testament has a message 
for each mind. Some of the truth in it has never yet 
been seen by anyone else. It is waiting like a virgin 
forest to be explored. It is fresh for every mind 
that explores it, for those who have passed this w T ay 
before have left it all here. It still has on it the 
dew of the morning and is ready to refresh the new¬ 
comer. Sermons lie hidden in Greek roots, in prep¬ 
ositions, in tenses, in the article, in particles, in cases. 
One can sympathize with the delight of Erasmus as 
he expressed it in the Preface of his Greek Testament 
four hundred years ago: “These holy pages will 
summon up the living image of His mind. They 
will give you Christ Himself, talking, healing, dying, 
rising, the whole Christ in a word; they will give 
Him to you in an intimacy so close that He would 
be less visible to you if He stood before your eyes.” 

Many who saw Jesus in the flesh did not under¬ 
stand Him. It is possible for us all to know the 
mind of Christ in the Greek New Testament in all 
the fresh glory of the Galilean Gospel of grace. The 


THE MINISTER’S USE OF HIS GREEK TESTAMENT 21 


originality that one will thus have is the joy of 
reality, the sense of direct contact, of personal in- * 
sight, of surprise and wonder as one stumbles unex¬ 
pectedly upon the richest pearls of truth kept for 
him through all the ages. 

ENRICHMENT OF ONE’S OWN MIND 

The trouble with all translations is that one’s mind 
does not pause long enough over a passage to get 
the full benefit of the truth contained in it. The 
Greek compels one to pause over each word long 
enough for it to fertilize the mind with its rich and 
fructifying energy. The very words of the English 
become so familiar that they slip through the mind 
too easily. One needs to know his English Bible 
just that way, much of it by heart, so that it will 
come readily to hand for comfort and for service. 
But the minute study called for by the Greek opens 
up unexpected treasures that surprise and delight 
the soul. 

Three of the most gifted ministers of my acquaint¬ 
ance make it a rule to read the Greek Testament 
through once a year. One of them has done it for 
forty years and is as fresh as a May morning to-day 
in his preaching. One of them is a man of marked 
individuality and he has added to undoubted genius 
the sparkling exuberance from the constant contact 
of his own mind with the Greek text. There is thus 
a flavor to his preaching and speaking that makes 
him a marked man wherever he appears upon the 
platform. He makes no parade of his learning, but 
simply uses the rich store that he has accumulated 


22 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


through the years. He brings out of his treasure 
things new and things old. And even the old is put 
in a new way. Light is turned on from a new angle 
of vision. The old has all the charm of the old and 
the glory of the new. 

GRAMMAR AS A MEANS OF GRACE 

The doctor does not complain at the details of his 
science. He has to know the minutiae of nature’s 
handiwork. Nothing is too small for his investiga¬ 
tion. He must know the laws of life, the ways of 
the cell, the habits of the bacilli and microbes that 
help and endanger human life, the value of all kinds 
of medicine, the idiosyncrasies of the individual, the 
wonders of the ductless glands and their influence 
on personality. Nothing is too small in order that 
one may save life. Surely the life of the soul is as 
important as that of the body. Scientists have high 
regard for the ways of nature. The microscope has 
done more for the prolongation of human life than 
has the telescope. Astronomy has become a science 
of grandeur and glory, but disease has been con¬ 
quered largely through the revelations of the micro¬ 
scope. Generalities are the peril of the preacher 
who has a fine scorn of technicalities. One must be 
able to make the proper generalization out of a mass 
of details, but he is no theologian who is not first a 
grammarian, as Dr. A. M. Fairbairn said. The 
preacher who ridicules word-studies merely exposes 
his own ignorance. The lexicon may point the way 
to life. The preacher is of necessity a student of 
words. He is the interpreter of language and em- 


THE MINISTER’S USE OF HIS GREEK TESTAMENT 23 


ploys language to convey his interpretation of life 
to the minds of men. They understand his words in 
their own sense, not in his. He understands the New 
Testament in his own sense, not in that of the writers, 
unless forsooth he has managed to grasp the fulness 
of that meaning. 

Thus there are all sorts of pitfalls for the preacher 
as the exponent of the message of the New Testa¬ 
ment. If the blind guide leads the blind, they will 
both fall into the ditch. One simply has to know^ 
his parts of speech if he is to keep out of the ditch 
and avoid dragging his followers after him. Schisms 
have arisen around misinterpretations of single 
words. Grammar is a means of grace. One may, 
indeed, break grammar if he can break hearts, pro¬ 
vided his grammar-smashing concerns unessential 
details not vital to the sense. Theological and phil¬ 
osophical crudities have always played an important 
part in the history of heresy. 

THE TOOLS AND THE MAN 

Civilized man has triumphed over brutes largely 
by the use of tools. They do not make the man, but 
the man makes the tools. As man makes progress, 
he continually improves his tools and his use of them. 
This is true in war, railroads, agriculture, everything. 
The man who has the best tools, other things being 
equal, will do the best work. Efficiency is largely 
skill in the use of the right tools. The modern 
preacher in his study is a man with his tools. If he 
does not have the right tools upon his desk, he cannot 
produce rapid results and as high grade work as he 


24 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


otherwise may. A man of parts without tools may 
surpass a dunderhead with good implements for 
work. That is beside the point. The man of genius 
with the best tools will do far more and far better 
work than he can do without such implements of 
* service. No preacher can be satisfied with less than 
the best that is in him. One can usually tell the 
quality of a preacher’s work by looking at the books 
in his library. 

Dr. Jowett says in his The Preacher; His Life and 
Work: “I would urge upon all young preachers, 
amid all their reading, to be always engaged in the 
comprehensive study of some one book of the Bible. 
Let that book be studied with all the strenuous 
mental habits of one’s student days.” That is the 
way to grow as a preacher. That is the way that 
Jowett grew. “You will see every text as colored 
and determined by its context, and indeed as related 
to vast provinces of truth which might otherwise 
seem remote and irrelevant. And you will be con¬ 
tinually fertilizing your minds by discoveries and 
surprises which will keep you from boredom.” How 
can a man who can get the best tools be content to 
use any others? How can he be willing to have the 
best tools and not use them? 

LEARNING TO USE THE GREEK 

It is possible for one to teach himself the elements 
of Greek so as to get a great deal of benefit from 
the study of the Greek New Testament. Davis’s 
Beginner's Grammar of the Greek New Testament is a 
good book for one who knows no Greek at all. A 


THE MINISTER’S USE OF HIS GREEK TFSTAMENT 25 

man of average intelligence and culture can go 
through this little book without a teacher. In a 
few months he will be reading the Gospel by John 
with some comfort. If he will then secure Bagster’s 
Analytical Lexicon of New Testament Greek , he will 
find every form in the New Testament given in 
alphabetical order and explained for a beginner. It 
will then be a matter of perseverance. 

It is an open road for one at this stage to get a 
Westcott and Hort Greek Testament with a lexicon, 
or he can get Souter’s Pocket Lexicon of the Greek - 
New Testament or Abbott-Smith’s Manual Lexicon. 
He can get a limp-back copy of the Westcott and 
Hort or of the Nestle edition that he can carry in 
his pocket and pull out whenever he has a moment 
of leisure. He can add now to this equipment 
Robertson’s Short Grammar of the Greek New Testa¬ 
ment and by degrees get ready for a more extended 
study of the Greek New Testament. One does not 
have to be a gifted linguist to follow a course of 
study like this. It requires only a half hour a day 
and the determination to stick to it steadily, and 
one will win out and be glad of it all his life. So 
will his hearers. 

NEW HELPS FOR THE STUDENT 

There is less excuse than ever for the man with 
college and seminary training who does not turn his 
knowledge of Greek to tremendous account. His 
tools are far .superior to those of a former generation. 
The critical and grammatical commentaries of 
Meyer served their day well and have been revised 


26 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


and brought up to date in the German editions. One 
who knows German can also use Zahn’s commen¬ 
taries and those by Holtzmann, and Lietzmann’s 
Handbuch. But the English student of the Greek 
New Testament has perhaps better commentaries 
on the whole. Those who have Ellicott will still find 
his comments of value, and certainly that is true of 
the great commentaries of Lightfoot and of West- 
cott in the valuable series so ably carried on by 
Swete, Milligan, Mayor, and Robinson (the Mac¬ 
millan Commentaries). The International Critical 
series challenges comparison with the best in any 
language. The Expositor’s Greek Testament is a 
distinct advance on Alford, and that is saying a good 
deal. The Cambridge Greek Testament for schools 
is a model series for brief and scholarly exposition. 

We still lack a new lexicon to take the place of 
Thayer which makes no use of the papyri, but the 
Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from 
the Papyri and Other Nan-literary Sources , by Moul¬ 
ton and Milligan will, when completed, go a long way 
toward supplementing Thayer until some one shall 
give us a new lexicon. Souter’s Pocket Lexicon of 
the New Testament is useful and convenient as is 
Abbot-Smith’s Manual Lexicon of the New Testa¬ 
ment , which gives a good deal of fresh information 
not in Thayer. The death of Caspar Rene Gregory 
postpones indefinitely a new edition of Tischendorf’s 
Novum Testamentum Graece , but some one will some 
day perform this greatly needed service. The un¬ 
timely death of James Hope Moulton leaves his 
Grammar of New Testament Greek incomplete. 


THE MINISTER’S USE OF HIS GREEK TESTAMENT 27 

The Prolegomena (Vol. I) was published in 1906. 
Accidence (Vol. II) he nearly finished before his 
death, and it was published. Syntax (Vol III) un¬ 
fortunately he had not done, and this is the most 
important part of all. 1 However, in his Prolegomena 
he made many syntactical remarks which very well 
outline his general attitude. He rendered an im¬ 
perishable service by his work on the papyri in illus¬ 
tration of the Greek of the New Testament. De- 
brunner has revised Blass’s Grammatik des neutesta - 
mentlichen Griechisch, but English students have 
only Thackeray’s translation of the original. Rader- 
macher’s short Neutestamentliche Grammatik is also 
untranslated. Burton’s New Testament Moods and 
Tenses is still of real worth. Robertson’s Grammar 
of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical 
Research covers the entire grammatical field in one 
large volume of over 1500 pages now in the fourth 
edition. 

There is, therefore, ample opportunity for the 
student who wishes to pursue his Greek studies. The 
books mentioned above will lead one on to mono¬ 
graphs without number. A dip into the papyri can 
be had in Milligan’s Greek Papyri. This book will 
tempt one to go on and read widely in the Oxy- 
rhynchus Papyri of Grenfell and Hunt and in other 
fascinating volumes that are now at one’s command. 
Deissmann’s Licht vom Osten is now in the fourth 
thoroughly revised edition. 

1 One of Moulton’s students, Prof. W. F. Howard, has under¬ 
taken to write Vol. Ill and has edited Vol. II, <which appeared 
in two parts. 


28 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


THE CHARM OF THE GREEK 

The high schools and the colleges may drop the 
Greek out of the curriculum in obedience to the de¬ 
mand of a utilitarian age. But the changing whims 
of modern educators cannot change the eternal 
charm of the Greek language. Chancellor West of 
Princeton University has published a remarkable 
volume of papers called The Value of the Classics. 
In this volume prominent men in various walks of 
life bear witness to the value of Greek in preparing 
them for great enterprises in modem life. The 
study of language has a value all its own as a mental 
discipline. 

The most perfect vehicle of human speech thus 
far devised by man is the Greek. English comes 
next, but Greek outranks it. The chief treasure in 
the Greek language is the New Testament. Homer 
and Thucydides and Aeschylus and Plato all take a 
rank below Paul and John and Luke. The cultural 
and spiritual worth of the Greek New Testament is 
beyond all computation. In the Renaissance the 
world woke up with the Greek Testament in its 
hands. It still stands before the open pages of this 
greatest of all books in wonder and in rapture as the 
pages continue to reveal God in the face of Jesus 
Christ. 


Chapter II 


NOTES ON A SPECIMEN PAPYRUS OF THE 
FIRST CENTURY A.D. 

Comparatively few students have access to the 
extensive volumes of the papyri in the large libraries. 
Where that is the case, the volumes prove to be in¬ 
tensely fascinating, as I notice is the case with my 
own students in Louisville. There is a small vol¬ 
ume of Selections from the Greek Papyri by Prof. 
George Milligan, D.D., of the University of Glas¬ 
gow, that is admirably suited as an introductory 
text-book, as I can testify from use in one of my 
classes. It is edited with translations and notes and 
introduction and index, and is inexpensive. It 
ought to have a wide circulation among ministers 
who are interested in the Greek New Testament. I 
have written this chapter for the purpose of drawing 
attention to the book as an aid to knowledge of the 
current Koine , in which the New Testament is writ¬ 
ten. The little book has examples of various types 
of culture. I have chosen one as a fair representative 
of what one finds in the volumes of Egyptian papyri. 
It is number 22 in Milligan’s volume (B. G. U. 530), 
belongs to the first century a.d., and comes from 
the Fayum. It is a letter of remonstrance from 
a father to a son who has left home and who 

does not write. The lot of land is about to be 

29 


30 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ruined and the son is urged to come home to help 
take care of it. 

I am glad to have the privilege of giving here the 
translation of the papyrus letter made by my col¬ 
league, Professor W. H. Davis. 

Translation: 

Hermocrates to Chaeras his son (t<p ui<pc), greet¬ 
ing (xatpetv). Before all things (xp6 tw[v oXwv) I 
pray (euxopiai) that you are in health. ... I beg 
you (Blopti ce) . . . to write concerning your health 
(xspl Tjjq uyfaO and whatever (Sit) you wish (jioGXi). 
Some time ago I wrote (lypa^a) you concerning the 
. . ., and you neither answered nor came (xal outs 
ivT£ypa^a<; outs ^X0a<;), and now (xai vuv), if (acdv) you 
do not come, I run the risk (xtvBtvsuo)) of losing the 
plot (of land) which I possess. Our partner (xotvwvoq) 
did not help with the work (ou ffuvTjpycfoaTo), for, in 
truth, not only (dXY ouB£ ydjv) was the well not 
cleaned out, but in addition (dXXox; ts xal) the water- 
channel (uBpaywyoq) was filled with sand, and the 
whole land lies uncultivated. Not one of the ten¬ 
ants (yswpywv) was willing to work it—only I con¬ 
tinue to pay the public taxes (toc oirjpioata) without re¬ 
ceiving anything in return—for hardly a single plot 
(xpaasdv) does the water irrigate (xot(^). Therefore, 
because of necessity, come; otherwise (£xl) the plants 
are in danger of perishing. Your sister Helene 
greets you, and your mother reproaches you be¬ 
cause you did not answer her (Ixl pir) dvxsypa^a?). 
Above all, security (Ixav&v) is demanded by the tax- 
gatherers (xpaxTdpwv) because you did not send 


NOTES ON A SPECIMEN PAPYRUS 


31 


(Bit otix exs^aq) the taxgatherers (to 5<; xpaxTopes) to 
you (?): but also now send to her. I pray that you 
are well. Pauni 9. 

(Addressed on the verso ): 

Deliver from Hermocrates to Chaeras his son. 

The letter opens with the absolute infinitive 1 so 
common in the papyri, though rare in the New Tes¬ 
tament 2 (James 1:1), like our greeting or “howdy.” 
The use of the article 3 as equivalent to “his” is a 
common enough idiom. The word for son 4 has 
both the iota subscript and adscript as printed, the 
latter being irrational iota also. I wonder if the 
subscript was really in the manuscript. “Before 
all” 5 reminds us of James 5:12, where the same 
preposition occurs. In 3 John 2 another prepo¬ 
sition 6 appears though the same verb for “I pray” 7 
or “I wish” is found. The same concern for the 
bodily health is shown as in John’s Epistle. The 
word for beg 8 is the common one for urgent per¬ 
sonal request as in 2 Cor. 5:20. Note the spelling 
-pis for -piai. The father begs the son to write 
concerning 9 his health. 10 The word for “what¬ 
ever” 11 is in the accusative neuter singular as in the 
New Testament examples, though the papyri, unlike 
the New Testament, have occasional instances of the 

1 xcapetv. Probable conjecture for hiatus in manuscript. 
2 See my Grammar , p. 1093. 3 -up. See my Grammar , pp. 684, 

769. 4 See my Grammar , p. 194. 5 xpb t6[v 8Xwv. 6 xep(. 

7 eCxopuxt. 8 S 4 opt.e(ai). 9 xep£, the common preposition though 
uxdp occurs also in this sense. 10 byiaq. This form is short 
for byidaq where -tet- (by itacism -«-) contracts into t, a new 
kind of contraction in the Koine and in the N. T. See my 
Grammar , p. 204. 11 <ki. See Grammar , p. 729. 


32 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


masculine and feminine accusative singular. It is 
not possible to tell what form of itacism occurs in 
the word for “you wish.” 12 The use of “ I wrote” 13 
is not the epistolary aorist, but the ordinary use in 
reference to a previous letter. There is an interest¬ 
ing use of “and”: 14 “and you neither answered nor 
came and now, etc.,” where “neither—nor” 15 come 
in between the positive connectives. The word for 
“answered” 16 is interesting because of the use of the 
preposition (g?vt() (in return). The spelling of “if” 17 
is frequent in the papyri and is due to the inter¬ 
change of at and s in sound as in (Slope) above (see 
Grammar, pp. 186 and 190). The use of the verb 
for peril, “I run the risk,” is like that in Luke 8:23. 
The word for “partner” 18 is that found in Luke 
5:10 of James and John, “who were partners with 
Simon.” 18 The word for “help with the work” 19 
is Paul’s word for his fellow-workers like Priscilla 
and Aquila (Rom. 16:3). The use of adversative 
particles 20 is like Paul's impassioned moments as in 
Phil. 1:18; 3:8. The word for channel 21 from the 
Nile for irrigation is expressive, “bearer (or leader) 
of water.” The term for tenants is the common one 
for “tillers of the soil” 22 (Matt. 21:33-34). The 
expression for “the public taxes” 23 illustrates 
pathetically that the only public duty many of the 
people in the Roman Empire shared was taxes. The 
word for “plot” 24 of land is precisely Mark’s “gar- 

12 (SouXc = pouXfl or @o6Xec. See Grammar, pp. 191, 195. 

13 eypatl'oc. 14 xa l. 15 ouxe-ouxe. 16 dcvxeypa^as. 17 a(<4v. 

18 xoivtovd?. 19 auvrjpy&aaxo. 20 dcXX’ ou8e -aXX(o<; xe xac. 

21 uSpayidyoq. 22 yewpyo?. 23 24 xpaaedc. 




NOTES ON A SPECIMEN PAPYRUS 


33 


den beds, garden beds” (Mark 6:40) for the pic¬ 
turesque groups on the green grass in orderly rows 
with the many colored garments of the orient. Two 
striking examples of itacism 25 occur. The use of 
(£xt sic ) in the sense of “since otherwise” is 
like that in Rom. 3:6; Heb. 9:26 (Grammar, pp. 
1025-6). The use of the negative with the in¬ 
dicative in a causal sentence 26 is like the single ex¬ 
ample with <m in the New Testament (John 3:18). 27 
The subjective nature of this negative in a causal 
sentence when the mother blames the son comes out 
sharply here in contrast with the emphatic negative 
a few lines below “because you did not send.” 28 
The word for “security” 29 is precisely the one em¬ 
ployed by Luke of the security that Jason had to 
give to the politarchs for having sheltered Paul in 
Thessalonica (Acts 17:9). The term for “tax- 
gatherers” 30 is the noun for the verb used by John 
the Baptist to the publicans when he charged them 
not to “exact” or “extort” 31 more than was allowed 
them; in other words, not to be grafters or profiteers. 
The publicans were past masters in the art of “do¬ 
ing” the public. Here is also an instance of the 
nominative plural form used as an accusative, 32 as 
is found in some of the dialects and occasionally in 
manuscripts of the New Testament and in the 
Septuagint. 

These are not all the grammatical and lexical 
points that call for comment in this letter of a page 

25 xox^t( = ec) and lxt( = el). 26 exl( = el) (x-f) devxsYP^aS- 27 8xt 
[ ti ] xexfoxeuxev. 28 oxc oijx exs^a?. 29 lxav6v. 30 xp&xxopsq. 
31 xpiaaexe. 32 xoCi? xpaxxope?. See Grammar , pp. 62, 266. 


34 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


and a half (narrow column). But enough has been 
said to show how rich the papyri are for the student 
of the Greek New Testament. The best linguistic 
commentary on the Greek New Testament is the 
papyri of the first century a.d. and the Septuagint. 
It is now possible for any eager student to have both 
these privileges without having to sell his coat to 
get them. 


Chapter III 


THE USE OF ‘TIIEP IN BUSINESS DOCUMENTS 

IN THE PAPYRI 

To-day I was at work in volumes xi and xii of the 
Oxyrhynchus Papyri for another purpose, when I 
was struck with the recurrent use of uxlp at the close 
of business documents where the writing was done 
for a man who was too ignorant to write himself. 
A couple of instances from the papyri are cited in 
my Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light 
of Historical Research (p. 631), and Moulton {Pro¬ 
legomena, p. 105) alludes to the idiom. Deissmann 
{Light from the Ancient East , pp. 152 f.) notes the 
frequent use in the ostraca, even in one from Thebes 
(SypoKpev 6x£p auTou) where ux£p has the sense of 
“for,” and adds that “it is not without bearing on 
the question of 6x4 p in the New Testament.” I 
wrote the sentence (p. 631): “In the papyri and the 
ostraca, ux£p often bore the sense of ‘instead of. 1 ” 
This judgment has been confirmed afresh by to¬ 
day’s reading in the papyri. 

Once quite an argument was made against the 
substitutionary theory of the atonement on the 
ground that Paul in the great passages (cf. 2 Cor. 5 
and Rom. 5) employs ux£p rather than dvri. In 
this criticism it was admitted that in Matthew 20: 

28 and Mark 10: 45 (X6xpov dvri xoXX&v) substitution 

35 


36 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


is clearly taught. But it was argued that Paul’s 
careful preference for 6x4 p proved that he did not 
conceive of Christ’s death as vicarious. This an¬ 
tithesis between <zvt l and 6x4 p was imaginary as a 
matter of fact. Neither word in itself means sub¬ 
stitution. It is a secondary idea in each instance. 
’Avt( literally means “at the end of” and so sug¬ 
gests contrast, succession, substitution, opposition, 
as the case may be. ‘Yx4p means literally “over” 
and the context alone can decide the resultant 
meaning which may be “concerning,” “beyond,” 
“in behalf of,” “instead of.” The ancient Greek 
writers employed dvzi, xp6, or 6x4 p for substitution 
as they wished. In the Alcestis of Euripides, where 
the substitutionary death of Alcestis for her hus¬ 
band is the point of the story, we find 6 x 4 p seven 
times, while dvx( and xpo together have fewer uses. 
The substitutionary use of uxep appears in Thucydi¬ 
des I. 141, Xenophon’s Anabasis 7. 4, 9, and in 
Plato’s Gorgias (515 C). In the Epistle to Diog- 
netus (p. 84) we actually see Xuxpov 6x4p Yjpiwv. So 
then it was never fair to say that the Greek idiom 
required a vt( for the idea of substitution. One fol¬ 
lowed his whims in the matter. For instance, Pau- 
sanias (Riiger, Die Prapositionen bei Pausanias , p. 
12) employed 6x4p twice as often as dvx(. Moulton 
(. Prolegomena , p. 165), remarks that ux4p is “more 
colourless” as compared with avxc. 

But the papyri, particularly the business docu¬ 
ments, show that Paul is following current usage 
when he prefers 6 x 4 p for the idea of substitution. 
The instances in the papyri are far too numerous to 


THE USE OF THEP IN BUSINESS DOCUMENTS 37 


quote, but enough are here given from a few vol¬ 
umes of the Oxyrhynchus and the Tebtunis Papyri, 
which I happened to be reading to-day, to prove 
the point up to the hilt. Certainly in all these in¬ 
stances the writing is done on behalf of one, but one 
cannot stop there. Wmer (Winer-Thayer, p. 382) 
rightly says: “In most cases one who acts in behalf 
of another takes his place.” This is absolutely true 
in the case of this recurrent idiom so common in the 
papyri, where a scribe writes a document in behalf 
of and instead of one who does not know letters. 
The scribe writes “for” one who is not able to 
write. 

In a contract for a loan, Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1281, 
lines 11, 12 (a.d. 21) the scribe appends his name 
thus: 'HpacxXscoq ''Qpou eypczf^a] uxep auTou pur) ?86 toc; 
Ypapiptaxa. This solemn asseveration makes the 
loan binding on the illiterate party to the contract. 
There is not the slightest doubt about the meaning 
of uxep in this sentence. The phraseology becomes 
almost a set formula in such documents. 

We find it twice in a declaration of temple lamp¬ 
lighters, Oxyrhynchus Papyri 1453, lines 33, 34 
(b.C. 30—29); ©]dm<; 'Apx[a]iQ<7i(o)<; y£YP a b a ux£p] 

auTOu Sea to [p/rj st’Sjevat aux6v 

Ibid., lines 36, 37 , 7 ^poq Totosut[o<; sypa^a ux£p 
a]uToO d£ca>0et<; S[ta to p/r) etSivac au]xov ypapipiaTa. 

That the lacunae here have been properly filled in 
the other instances of the idiom make plain. 

Take this instance in a sub-lease of crown-land, 
Tebtunis Papyri 373, line 23 (a.d. iio-i) second 
hand: [y^] Y poc^a ux£p auTou (paafxovToq] p,^ scSevac 


38 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ypapiptaxa. There the formula varies a bit in the use 
of (paaxovToq (alleging). 

The next instance occurs in the resignation of 
claims to an estate, Tebtunis Papyri 380, lines 43, 
44 (a.D. 67): eypatpev uxep [ajuxwv Auaag AtBu[p.ou] 
Bid to pi^ e!B[s]ve auTouq ypapipiaxa. One cannot break 
the force of these examples by saying that they 
all reflect the same set idiom. The point is rather 
strengthened than otherwise. The set idiom for 
substitution employs uxep rather than dvx(. 

There is a case of division of property, Tebtunis 
Papyri 833, lines 57, 58 (a.d. 46) second hand: 
eypa^ev uxlp auxwv Mape^-qput; Bid x& pi^) ejjBevai 
ypapipiaxa). 

The examples cover a great variety of cases. 
There is an apprenticeship to a weaver, Tebtunis 
Papyri 385, lines 28, 29 (a.d. 117) second hand: 
eypa^Jsv ux£p auxou Maps^fjpuq ypapipiaxa pifj] 

e(B(6xo<;). 

The next belongs to a marriage contract, Tebtunis 
Papyri 386, lines 25-28 (b.C. 12): eypa^ev ux£p auxou 
Txx[(a<; T]xx[cou] d£i(j)[0e]i<; Bid x6 ipdaxiv (a)uxBv pir) 
£xt[axaa0ai y]p(a)pipLaxot. 

Surely one more instance will suffice. This one 
belongs to a loan of grain and money, Tebtunis 
Papyri 388, lines 34, 35 (a.d. 98): eypa^ev uxlp auxou 
Aua[(piax(o<;)] Kpov(wvo<; pi 9 ) ecBoxoc; ypdpt(pi)axa. 

It is needless to add more. They tell the same 
almost monotonous story of the substitutionary use 
of uxep. 

When we turn to the New Testament from the 
papyri there can, of course, be no grammatical re- 



THE USE OF ’THEP IN BUSINESS DOCUMENTS 39 


luctance to allowing the same usage for 6x1 p if the 
context calls for it. Theological prejudice must be 
overruled. 

There are two instances in the New Testament 
that are as plain as any in the papyri, examples that 
are explained in the context on the basis of the sub¬ 
stitutionary use of v%ip. One of these occurs in 
John 11:50, where Caiaphas unwittingly plays the 
prophet, but makes perfectly clear his own meaning: 
06B6 Xoy(^ea0e Bxt aup-cpepet up.lv hoc elq ocvdpo)%oq axo0avfl 
uxlp tou Xaou xa'i p/?) oXov t6 e0vo<; dxBXYjxat. The 
last clause shows conclusively that Caiaphas 
means that Jesus is to be put to death so that the 
people perish not. It is political substitution that 
Caiaphas has in mind and not theological, though 
John finds that in the words also. But the author 
of the Fourth Gospel has no hesitation in employing 
uxl p for the idea of vicarious suffering in the mind 
of Caiaphas. Abbott (. Johannine Grammar , p. 276) 
thinks that in almost all the Johannine instances 
6x6 p refers to the death of one for the many. 

The other instance is in Galatians 3:13. In this 
passage (3:10-13) Paul draws a picture by means of 
three prepositions (6x6, uxe p, lx). There are pictures 
in prepositions if one has eyes to see them. Here 
Paul is discussing the death of Jesus on the Cross. 
Let us see his picture. He is arguing that the real 
children of Abraham are those who believe, whether 
Jews or Gentiles, for all who try to be saved by the 
law are under a curse ( 5 x 6 xaxapav). The curse of 
the law, like a Damascus blade, hangs over the head 
of every one who lives not up to every requirement 


40 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of the law. But Christ became a curse for us or 
over us (ysv6pt,£vo<; ux£p -rjpiwv xaidpa), that is the Da¬ 
mascus blade fell on Christ instead of upon us, 
Christ standing over (ux6p) us and between us and 
the curse of the law under (6x6) which we lived. 
Thus Christ bought us out from under the curse of 
the law (Xpiaioq rjpiat; i?TQy6paaev iv. TYjq xaxapac; tou 
v6p.ou). The curse had no longer power over us and 
we were set free. We walked out (ix) from under 
(6x6) the curse because Christ became a curse in our 
stead (uxip). Thus Paul tells the story of Christ’s 
atoning death by means of these three Greek prep¬ 
ositions. It was a common thing for a man (see 
the papyri) to buy a slave for the purpose of setting 
him free. Paul uses this idiom in Galatians 5:1, 13. 
“For freedom did Christ set us free,” “for ye were 
called for freedom.” There is no fair way to get 
around Paul’s meaning in Galatians 3:13. There 
is no grammatical reason for trying to do so. When 
one turns to such passages as Mark 14:24; 2 Corin¬ 
thians 5:15; Romans 5:6 f.; 8:32; Titus 2:14; 
Hebrews 2 :g, there is no room left for protest from 
the side of grammar. In a case like Philemon 13 
one is inclined to think also that Paul means that 
Onesimus ministered to him in lieu of Philemon 
(tva ux6p aou pioc Btaxovfj), though “in behalf of” will 
make sense. 

I do not care to go farther into the theological 
objections to the substitutionary theory of the atone¬ 
ment which have been used to distort the plain 
meaning of a context like Galatians 3:10-13. For 
myself I may say that no one of the theories of the 


THE USE OF 'TIIEP IN BUSINESS DOCUMENTS 41 

atonement states all the truth nor, indeed, do all of 
them together. The bottom of this ocean of truth 
has never been sounded by any man's plumb-line. 
There is more in the death of Christ for all of us . 
than any of us has been able to fathom. There is, 
no doubt, an element of truth in all our theories. 
Each is one angle of the truth, but only one. How¬ 
ever, one must say that substitution is an essential 
element in any real atonement. It is by no means 
all of it, as one can see from Hebrews 9:12-14. 
But it is futile to try to get rid of substitution on 
grammatical arguments about uxsp. The presump¬ 
tion is now in favour of the use of uxep for the idea 
of substitution. 

As to philosophical difficulties they were always 
chiefly imaginary and grew out of the fancied ne¬ 
cessity of explaining every aspect of this blessed 
truth. Nicodemus is not the only theologian or 
philosopher who has stumbled at “the earthly" 
things before he could believe “the heavenly" 
(John 3:12). The necessity of the lifting up of 
the Son of man (3:14) lies back in the purpose of 
God who was just and wished to justify the sinful 
(Rom. 3:26). We can thank God that He did so 
love the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, 
that every one who believes on Him should not 
perish but might have eternal life (John 3:16). 
That is the gospel. It is the gospel since the war 
as it was before. The men in the trenches have put 
the theologians to shame by the readiness with 
which they accepted and in a measure apprehended 
the fact that Christ died to save sinners, died to 


42 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


make men holy as they were dying to make men 
free. It is a good time to preach again the gospel 
of grace. There never was any other real gospel to 
preach, but just now the hearts of men are ready 
for the real gospel of love. We may leave to God 
His part of the problem provided we act in accord 
with His demands upon us. We do not have to 
explain in full precisely how the death of Christ has 
value with God for our sin so that He is willing to 
forgive us and let us go free. There are many 
- defects in the human intellect. We see in a glass 
darkly, but God’s love, like His laws, works on in 
spite of our dulness. It will do us no harm to spec¬ 
ulate with our philosophical theories. That is our 
privilege and our duty so long as we recognize 
clearly that we are quite beyond our depth. Mean¬ 
while it is good to preach over again the full gospel 
of the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus for human sin. 
That is what is meant by the grace of God (2 Cor. 
8:9). The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ appears 
precisely in this, that, though rich, He became poor 
that we, through His poverty, might become rich. 
That is substitution. The one who knew no sin 
God made to be sin in our stead (6xsp) that we 
might become God’s righteousness in Him (2 Cor. 
5:21). All this and more Paul poured into the 
preposition uxip. The papyri forbid our emptying 
uxep of this wealth of meaning in the interest of any 
theological theory. 


Chapter IV 


PICTURES IN PREPOSITIONS 

All language was originally pictographic. The 
picture was first seen and then the effort was made 
to describe it. Some of the words retain the pic¬ 
turesque origin and in some it fades away. Prepo¬ 
sitions are essentially words of location employed to 
help out the meaning of the oblique cases and then 
later used in composition with verbs. Often the 
original concept survives in composition when it has 
vanished elsewhere. One cannot afford to slur over 
the prepositions in the sentence if he wishes to under¬ 
stand the Greek New Testament. It is worth while 
to examine some instances that illustrate this point 
in a striking way. 

The New Testament preserves amphi 1 only in 
composition. It was obsolete in most of the dia¬ 
lects, though common in Homer, the poets, and 
Herodotus and occasionally in Attic prose. It still 
survives as a free preposition occasionally in the 
papyri. The word is the locative case of ampho , 2 
both. It is the same root as the Latin ambo and 
literally means “on both sides.” So a man is 
ambiguous who tries to go on both sides or is in 
doubt which side to go. Thus in Mark 1114 we 
read that the two disciples found the colt “tied at 

2 5n<p(i>. 


1 


43 


44 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the door without in the open street” (Am. St. Ver¬ 
sion), “in a place where two ways met” (Auth. 
after Tyndal), 3 “in the street” (Moffatt), “in bivio ” 
(Vulgate), “in the meeting of tweye weyes” (Wyc- 
liffe). The Septuagint has it in Jer. 17:27; 30:16. 
Evidently the house stood where two streets met or 
crossed. But the most striking instance of amphi 
in the New Testament is in Mark 1:16, where we 
are told that Jesus, passing along by the Sea of 
Galilee, “saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of 
Simon, casting a net in the sea.” 4 Moffatt has it 
“netting fish in the sea.” The word literally means 
“to throw on both sides.” It is thus used of put¬ 
ting on clothes around the body, of throwing the 
arms around one. Here the idea is, as Thayer 
shows, “to cast to and fro, now to one side, now to 
the other.” Mark’s word reproduces Peter’s vivid 
picture of the fishing, first on one side of the boat, 
then on the other, and with no result after a whole 
night of such work (Luke 5:5). 

The use of ana 5 is very common in composition 
and only a few striking examples can be adduced 
out of the great number that are interesting. The 
word literally means “up” as opposed to “down,” 6 
but the two words are very much alike in the dis¬ 
tributive phrases and in some verbs. Thus both 
anaklino 7 (Luke 12:37) and kataklino 8 (Luke 14:8) 
are employed for ‘ ‘ recline. ’ ’ Sometimes some manu¬ 
scripts give one, some the other, as in Luke 9:15. 

3 exl toG dpup6Bou. 4 d^t^XXovra?. In Matt. 4:18 we have 
dqx^XiqaTpov for net. Cf. Hab. 1:17. 5 dva. 6 xaxd. 7 dvaxXtvw. 

8 xaxaxX£va>. 


PICTURES IN PREPOSITIONS 


45 


So both anakeimai 9 (Matt. 9:10) and katakeimai 10 
(Mark 14:3). “Up” and “down” differ only in 
standpoint and both come to be used in the sense of 
“back.” In Mark 16:4 both senses of “up” and 
“back” occur: “And looking up, 11 they see that the 
stone is rolled back,” 12 “rolled to one side” (Mof- 
fatt). Sometimes a contrast is made between the 
word with ana and without it as in Acts 8130. “ Un- 

derstandest 13 thou what thou readest?” 14 The 
English fails to show that the verb is the same ex¬ 
cept the preposition ana. Simple ginosko means to 
“know” while anaginosko means to “know again,” 
to recognize as of persons. When applied to writ¬ 
ten characters or letters, it means “to read.” There 
is thus a subtle play on the word in the question of 
Philip to the Eunuch. Precisely the same dis¬ 
tinction occurs in 2 Cor. 3:2: “Known and read of 
all men.” The delicate pun is concealed in 2 Cor. 
1:13: “What ye read 15 or even acknowledge.” 16 
The verb is the same, but the prepositions ( ana 
and epi) differ. Moffatt tries to reproduce the 
idea: “You don’t have to read between the lines of 
my letters.” The same preposition appears with 
two different verbs in 2 Tim. 1:6: “I put thee in 
remembrance 17 that thou stir 18 up the gift of God.” 
Moffatt preserves a trace of the repetition of ana: 
“I remind you to rekindle the divine gift” (note 
re-). Paul is stirring the embers of memory again 
that he may spur Timothy to renewed endeavor to 

9 dcv&xeiiAoct. 10 xaxaxetpuxc. 11 <£va@X44>aaat. 12 avaxexuXtaxac. 
13 Yivaxjxeci;. 14 dvaYivwaxeis. 15 dcva^tvwaxexs. 16 exiYivuxjxexe. 
17 dcva[JU[XVYjax(i). 18 dva^toxupsiv. 


46 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


keep the fire blazing (present tense of ana-zo-pur - 
ein } not aorist of punctiliar action to start the fire 
again or “stir into flame” as the margin of American 
Standard Version has it). There is a sad story of 
human depravity in anaireo . 19 The word simply 
means to take up, to lift up, as when Pharaoh’s 
daughter “herself took up” 20 the babe in the bul¬ 
rushes (Acts 7:21) and “nourished him for her own.” 
But the very same word came to be used for taking 
up and making away with and killing as when 
Herod “sent forth, and slew 21 all the male children 
that were in Bethlehem” (Matt. 2:16). The ene¬ 
mies of Christ plotted to “kill” him (Luke 22:2) 
and Peter charges the Jewish leaders with having 
“made away with” or “slain” Jesus (Acts 2:23). 
In Matt. 11:28 (and 29) the word for “rest” 22 is 
like our “refreshment” or even like our vernacular 
“rest up.” The verb means to cause to stop or 
cease, middle to make oneself cease and so to rest 
and find restoration of energy (refreshment). Jesus 
is himself the source of spiritual energy, the fount 
of life. One more example may be permitted. It 
is Acts 17:6: “These that have turned the world 
upside down,” 23 “these upsetters of the whole 
world” (Moffatt). The word means “to upset” 
(not “to set up”). In the papyri 24 two striking 
illustrations of precisely this sense occur in two pri¬ 
vate letters. One is a boy’s letter: “he upsets me.” 26 

19 dvacp&i). 20 dvefXax o. Note middle voice. 21 dtvstXev. 
22 dcvaxauaw (v. 28). dcvaxauacv (v. 29 ). 23 ol dvaaTaTG>aavTe<;. 

24 See Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary of the N. T. 

25 dvaaTarot pie. 


PICTURES IN PREPOSITIONS 


47 


Probably no preposition presents a more vivid 
picture than anti . 26 It means literally “at the end” 
of a line or of a log or whatever it may be. So the 
notion of “face to face” or “opposite” follows. It 
is our very word “end” and is in the locative case. 
The picture all depends on the two objects that 
come face to face. Two lovers at each end of the 
sofa and two rival claimants for the same girl’s hand 
and heart make quite different pictures. In Gal. 
2:11 Paul says of his controversy with Peter: “i 
resisted 27 him to the face” where the addition of 
“face to face” 28 makes the picture plainer. But in 
Luke 24:17 there is the fullest fellowship with no 
notion of opposition. “ What are these words which • 
you are exchanging 29 with one another as ye walk?” 
Here the words are pictured as tossed back and 
forth from end to end of the imaginary line of con¬ 
versation. That is free converse. In Acts 27:15 
Luke in poetic vein says that “the ship was caught 
and could not face 30 the wind,” literally “could not 
eye the wind face to face” or “could not look the 
wind in the eye.” In 1 Peter 2:23 we see a pointed 
illustration of the use of anti: “who, when he was 
reviled, reviled not back.” 31 It is so hard not to 
“answer back.” Slaves had abundant provocation, 
but Peter urged the example of Jesus to influence 
the Christian slaves to forbearance. In Luke 10:31 
and 32 both the priest and the Levite “passed by on 
the other side,” 32 where “on the other side” is ex- 

26 <bnl. 27 dvxI oxyjv, I stood face to face with. 28 xocrd 
xp6au)xov. 29 dcvTt^XXere. 30 dtvTo<p0aX[xetv. 31 ivxsXo*’ 

32 dvxtxapfjXQsv. 


48 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


pressed by anti in composition. Each of them 
“came” to where the poor fellow had been left by 
the robber and for fear of ceremonial defilement 
promptly stepped to the other side of the road {anti) 
and then “passed by” {para) safely. It is a vivid 
picture of the working of Jewish scrupulosity with¬ 
out ethical responsibility and without mercy. It is 
drawn to the life. The preposition is also employed 
in the law of retaliation, “an eye for 33 an eye,” “a 
tooth for 33 a tooth” (Matt. 5:38). It was often 
employed with the word for ransom 34 that was used 
for the price of a slave that was bought and set free. 
It is the word that is given in the great saying of 
Jesus when he said that he came “to give his life 
a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45; Matt. 20:28). 
The life of Jesus is the price paid for our freedom 
from sin. 

There is less that is spectacular in apo™ It is our 
word “of” or “off” and often gives a touch of life 
as in Matt. 13:46: “He has gone off 36 and has sold 
all that he had” (cf. Jas. 1:24). It is common with 
many verbs in composition with the notion of “off,” 
“away,” or “back.” In Heb. 11:26 it is used for 
the wistful looking away 37 of Moses to the distant 
recompense in the future as seeing him who is in¬ 
visible. It is found in the common word for “en¬ 
rolment” 38 in the papyri that reenforce Luke’s state¬ 
ment in Luke 2:2 in such a striking way. 39 It is 
a part of the ordinary word for “receipt” in multi- 

33 dcvxt 34 Xuxpov. 35 dcx6. 36 dtxeXOwv. 37 <2x4£Xexev. 38 dxoypa^iQ, 
dcxoYp&popiat (writing off, copying). 39 See my Luke the His¬ 
torian in the Light of Research. 


PICTURES IN PREPOSITIONS 


49 


tudes of the papyri and is the idea of Jesus in Matt. 
6:2; “They have their reward in full.” 40 It is in the 
common word for “answer,” 41 to make a reply, to 
say a word back at one. We have it in our English 
word “apology,” a defence in reply to an attack. 

The word dia 42 often conceals its root meaning. 
That is “two,” “twain,” “in two.” This original 
conception appears clearly in some compound words. 
Thus we read of the wild Gerasene demoniac that 
“the chains had been rent asunder 43 by him” 
(Mark 5:4), “snapped in two,” where the notion of 
“asunder” or “in two” is in the dia. We see the 
same idea of “two” in Acts 15:9: “And he made no 
distinction 44 between us and them,” where Peter 
(or Luke’s report of Peter’s Aramaic) not only em¬ 
ployed the word 45 which means to “separate,” but 
he adds the preposition dia , which means “two,” 
and then he adds another preposition meaning “be¬ 
tween.” 46 So in 1 Cor. 6:5 the compound verb 47 
is followed by a prepositional phrase for “be¬ 
tween.” 48 The preposition often appears with an 
intermediary as in Matt. 1:22, “that which was 
spoken by 49 the Lord through 50 the prophet.” In 
Acts 5:7 the word “interval” 51 suggests the space 
coming in between two events. 

The word ek 52 (s) means “out of” as opposed to 
“from” or “away from” ( apo ). Thus in Matt. 3:16 
we have “Jesus went up from 53 the water” while 
in Mark 1:10 we find Jesus “going up out of 54 the 

40 dx£x ou( 7 tv - 41 dxoxpfvopiai. 42 Std from Suo (two). 43 SieaxdaOat. 
44 Sidxpcvev. 45 xptvo). 46 (xeta^u. 47 Siaxpivat. 48 dva (liaov. 49 6x6. 
60 Sid. 61 SidaxT)p.a. 52 ex, e£. 63 ax6. 54 ex. 


50 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


water.” Occasionally both prepositions occur to¬ 
gether as in Phil. 3:20: “whence also we wait for 55 a 
Saviour.” The picture is like that of a wife who 
watches at evening for her husband, who tarries. 
She steps out of the door, down the steps, finally 
out of the gate and looks away down the street with 
longing for his coming. In John 2:15, where Jesus 
“poured out 66 the changers’ money,” we can see the 
pieces of money rolling away in every direction. In 
Luke 9:31 Moses and Elijah “spoke of the exodus 67 
which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.” 
The same word occurs in Heb. 11:22 of “the de¬ 
parture of the children of Israel” from Egypt, to 
which Joseph looked forward. In 2 Peter 1:15 it 
appears as the word for Peter’s death, “after my de¬ 
parture.” In Heb. 13:7 another word 58 appears for 
the “close” or “issue” of life, “going out” from this 
life. 

En 69 and eis 60 are really the same root only 
slightly altered by the addition of s. En is older 
and originally was alone employed either with the 
locative case or the accusative as in is in Latin. Eis 
was a later development for the accusative idiom 
alone, but the two uses were not sharply distin¬ 
guished. En ceased to appear with the accusative, 
but continued to be employed with the locative 
where eis and the accusative would be appropriate. 
Likewise eis and the accusative made inroads on all 
the uses of en and in Modern Greek vernacular eis 
has displaced en. In the New Testament there is 


65 <£xex5ex6[xe0a. 
66 e(<; = Ivq = 4? = ei<;. 


66 4£4xeev. 57 2£o5o<;. 68 2x£aac<;. 69 iv. 


PICTURES IN PREPOSITIONS 


51 


no absolute line of cleavage. It is idle to insist on a 
fast meaning of “into” for eis. In reality it simply 
means '‘in” just like en. One must be prepared to 
find en and eis used interchangeably for they are in 
truth the same word. So in Matt. 12:41 we read 
of the men of Nineveh: “For they repented at 61 the 
preaching of Jonah.” Moffatt has it: “when Jonah 
preached.” Certainly the book of Jonah forbids 
the rendering, “in order that Jonah might preach.” 
Undoubtedly, repentance on the part of the hearers 
usually is a great aid to good preaching, but on this 
occasion Jonah became quite angry at the repent¬ 
ance of the people, for it led to their forgiveness by 
God and to the failure of his proclamation about the 
destruction of the city in forty days. So in Matt. 
10:41-42 we have “in the name of a prophet,” “in 
the name of a righteous man,” “in the name of a 
disciple,” 62 where Moffatt pointedly puts it “be¬ 
cause he is a prophet,” “because he is good,” “be¬ 
cause he is a disciple.” Both in the Septuagint and 
in the papyri the word for name 63 is common for 
the person (Acts 1:15) and for the power and author¬ 
ity of the person. It is quite immaterial whether 
one uses eis onoma as in Matt. 10:41-42 and 12:41 
or en onomati 64 as in Matt. 21 ; Mark 9 49. Hence 

we find either “baptized en 65 the name of Jesus 
Christ” (Acts 2:38) or “baptizing eis 66 the name 
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 
(Matt. 28:19). It is splitting a hair to insist on 
“into” the name because of the use of eis. There 

61 elq xb xrjpuYU-a. 62 ete bvopuz. 63 3vopia. 44 iv 6v6naxc. 66 Iv. 
66 elq. 


52 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


are many turns in the use of both en and eis into 
which we cannot go here. They are all treated at 
length in Chapter XIII of my larger Grammar. 

The use of epi 67 is very common both in composi¬ 
tion and with nouns and pronouns. It means rest¬ 
ing upon (not in, under, or merely over). Thus in 
Matt. 3:16 (= Luke 3:22) we find the Spirit of God 
descending as a dove and coming upon 67 him. Here 
Mark 1 :io has eis (“on”). The idea plainly is that 
the Spirit came upon Jesus as a dove lights upon 
one. In Luke 10:6 the preposition occurs both with 
the verb and with the pronoun: “Your peace shall 
rest upon 67 him.” Paul has this figure in 1 Cor. 
3:10-14 where he uses the verb to “build upon” 68 
(four times) Christ as the only right foundation. It 
is common also with onoma as in Matt. 18:5, “upon 
the basis of my name” (cf. the similar use of en and 
eis with onoma). Epi is employed to help out the 
meaning of the genitive case as in Matt. 6:10, “upon 
earth” in contrast with “in heaven” {en), the loca¬ 
tive as in Matt. 4:4, “upon the basis of bread alone,” 
the dative as in 2 Cor. 9:14, “by reason of the sur¬ 
passing grace of God to you,” the accusative as in 
Matt. 3:16 (above). But the distinction between 
the cases with epi grows dim in the expression for 
“sitting on the throne” with the genitive and the 
accusative in Matt. 19:28; the accusative in Rev. 4:2, 
the locative in many manuscripts in Rev. 4:9 (geni¬ 
tive in text of W. H.) and the genitive in 4:10. A 
most interesting use of epi is the sense of “addition 
to,” something piled upon what has already been 

67 £%l. 68 IxotxoSo^et. 


PICTURES IN PREPOSITIONS 


53 


said or done. Thus in Col. 3:14 we have “and 
above all these things,” 69 “on top of all the other 
spiritual garments” described in Col. 3:12-13, “put 
on 70 love” as an overcoat or outer wrap or girdle 
that covers and holds together all the rest, the 
overcoat of love or the girdle of love. 

In the use of kata , 71 “down,” we see the question 
of standpoint emphasized. In reality “up” and 
“down” are the same idea from opposite poles. In 
1 Cor. 11 .*4 the figure is that of having a veil hanging 
“down from the head” 72 (ablative case). So in 
Acts 27:14 the typhonic wind “beat down from it” 73 
(the island, not “down on it”). In Mark 5:13 “the 
herd rushed down the steep 74 into the sea,” pellmell 
down from the top of the hill. The word is com¬ 
mon in the sense of “down on” (“against”) one 
(Matt. 5:11). In Mark 5 40 the people in the house 
of Jairus “laughed him to scorn” 75 when Jesus in¬ 
sisted that the child was not dead, but sleeping. 
They tried to “laugh him down.” In composition 
the Greek often has kata (down) when we say “up.” 
Thus in Matt. 3:12 “the chaff he will burn up.” 76 
So in Rev. 10:9 “eat it up” 77 where the Greek has 
“eat it down.” Again, in Phil. 2:12 we have “work 
out your own salvation” where the Greek has 
“work down” 78 to the finish (perfective use of the 
preposition). 

The doctrine of repentance is set forth by meta, 79 
The word literally means “midst.” We see this 

69 ixl xaacv Bs xouxocq. 70 £vB 6 aaa 0 e. 71 xax<£. 72 xaxa xe<paXij<;. 
73 xax’ auxT) q. 74 xaxa xou xpirpvoG. 75 xaxey^Xcov. 76 xaxaxauaet. 

7 xaxtfcpaYe. 78 xaxepYa^eaQs. 79 [Asx&. 


54 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


idea in Luke 12:29: “ Neither be of doubtful mind/' 80 
where “being in mid-air,” tossed about in the air like 
a balloon, is the conception. The same idea ap¬ 
pears in “with” as in metochos , 81 partner, as in 
Luke 5:7, one who has a business in common with 
one. In repentance the notion of “midst” has 
passed to that of “after” possibly by “passing 
through the midst” of an experience and then look¬ 
ing back on it. It is thus the “change” due to re¬ 
flection. Certainly the word for repentance 82 is 
more than a mere “after-thought.” It is a “change 
of mind” that leads to and is shown by a change of 
life, “fruits worthy of repentance” (Luke 3:8). We 
see the notion of change in the Transfiguration 
(Metamorphosis) 83 of Jesus (Mark 9:2). It is the 
word employed by Paul in Rom. 12:2 for non¬ 
conformity to the fashion of the world. The phrase 
seems like a bit of satire as one notes how the world 
shapes the habits of Christians instead of Christians 
transforming the life of the world. 

The word para 84 means “beside,” “by the side 
of.” It is found with the locative, the accusative 
and the ablative. The classic example of para with 
the locative is in John 19:25, where the Mother of 
Jesus with three other women stood “by 85 the cross 
of Jesus.” Evidently they stood as close up as pos¬ 
sible. The famous oratorio, Stabat Mater, rests on 
this expression. Mary stood with the sword pierc¬ 
ing her heart clear through as Simeon had said it 
would. In Matt. 19:26 we have another fine illus- 

80 (ijj) {X£reo)p{^so06. 81 [liToxoq. 82 ^exavota. 83 pieTenop<pd>0T). 

84 xap 86 irapi x4> axauptp. 


PICTURES IN PREPOSITIONS 


55 


tration of the vivid use of para. The disciples were 
puzzled over the impossibility of a camel’s doing 
through the eye of a needle and the consequent im¬ 
possibility of any one’s being saved if the rich could 
not be. Jesus promptly accepted their point of 
view: “With 86 men this is impossible; but with 86 
God all things are possible.” Standing by the side 
of men it did look impossible for any one to be saved 
as it was impossible for the camel to go through the 
eye of the needle. But standing by the side of God 
nothing is impossible and he can save even the rich. 
Sometimes para is used for “at the home of” as in 
Acts io:6, which is rendered in 10:32 by en oikiai 
(“at the house of”). See also Acts 11:12. See the 
same idea in John 14:23 when Jesus promises that 
he and the Father “will come and make our abode 
with” 86 the man who loves and obeys him. They 
will make a permanent home in his heart and 
life. 

The meaning of peri 87 is “around.” We see that 
idea clearly in the repeated preposition in Mark 
9:42, “if a great millstone were hanged about his 
neck.” In Acts 25:7 the Jews, we read, “stood 
round about” 88 Paul, eagerly accusing Paul to 
Festus. The word appears twice in Mark 3:34 be¬ 
sides kykloi (circle). In 2 Thess. 3:11 Paul makes 
a play on the word for “work,” 89 with 90 and with¬ 
out the preposition, “doing nothing but doing 
about,” “busybodies instead of busy” (Moffatt). 
A vivid picture is given in 2 Cor. 3:16 for “remov- 

86 xocp 6c. 87 xspt 88 Tepi&JTTjtjav. 89 epyatop^voui;. 90 xepiepya- 

totiivou?. 


56 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ing the veil from around” 91 the heart of the Jews 
who do turn to^he Lord Jesus. So the same verb 
occurs in Acts 27:20 when all hope is taken away. 
In Luke 10:40 a vivid picture of Martha’s over¬ 
anxiety is drawn by the repeated preposition: “ She 
was drawn around 92 (distorted) about 93 much 
service.” 

Pro 94 is simple enough and appears in our Eng¬ 
lish “fro,” “fore.” It means literally “fore,” “be¬ 
fore” as in Acts 12:14, where the maid reported that 

“Peter stood before 94 the gate.” Jesus is described 

* 

as “the forerunner” 95 in the Christian race who has 
run on ahead and has entered the veil ahead of us. 
It is found in Paul’s word for “progress,” “cutting 
ahead” 96 like blazing a path through the forest, a 
pioneer who presses on ahead of the rest who will 
come later (1 Tim. 4:15): “that thy progress may be 
manifest to all.” It is fine to see the young preacher 
forging ahead year by year. It is used by Paul of 
God’s foreknowledge and foreordination in Rom. 
8:28. 

The meaning of pros 97 seems to be “near” and 
then “face to face.” “Peter stood by 97 the door 
outside” (John 18:16) and “Mary was standing 
without at 97 the tomb” (John 20:11) and the two 
angels stood, one at 97 the head and one at the foot 
of the tomb (20:12). In the New Testament there 
is only one example with the genitive or ablative 
(Acts 27:34) and seven with the locative, but the 
accusative is exceedingly common. The accusative 

91 xeptacpetTac. 92 xepteaxaTO. 93 xep(. 94 xp6. 95 xp6$popLo<;. 
86 xpoxoxiQ. 97 xp6q. 


PICTURES IN PREPOSITIONS 


57 


seems to be sometimes devoid of any notion of 
motion (only extension). The Greek word for 
“face,” prosopon 98 has pros in it. It means “be¬ 
fore the eye,” “in front of the eye,” “the face.” In 
I Cor. 13:12 Paul says: “For now we see in a mir¬ 
ror darkly, but then face to face,” 99 with pros three 
times. In John 1:1 John says that “the Logos was 
with 100 God,” “face to face with God,” in equal 
fellowship and nature. In fact the language means 
that the Logos was eye to eye with God and the 
conclusion follows, “the Logos was God.” Paul 
longs for the day when he will be “at home with 101 
the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). See Gal. 1:18. 

We have sun 102 in our word “sympathy” which 
appears in Rom. 8 :i8: “ If so be that we suffer with 103 
him, that we may also be glorified with 104 him.” 
See also “symphony” in Matt. 18:19. Paul is ex¬ 
ceedingly fond of compound words with sun for the 
idea of association and cooperation. In Luke 10:40 
Martha begs Jesus to make Mary “take hold of her 
end of the work along with ” 105 her. Paul employs the 
very same for the help rendered by the Holy Spirit 
who helps 105 our weakness. Paul uses sunergos 106 
for co-worker as in Rom. 16:3 and sunkoinonos 107 
for partners as in Phil. 1 7. We have been raised 
with 108 Christ (Col. 2:12) and crucified together 
with 109 Christ (Gal. 2:20). The acme of bliss for 
Paul is “to be with 110 Christ” (Phil. 1:23). 


98 xpocwxov. 99 xpoatoxov xpbq xpbawxov. 100 xpbg xbv 9e6v. 
101 xpbq xov xuptov. 102 cuv. 103 auvxaaxop.ev. 104 cuv§o£ac9<jpi£v. 
105 cuvavTcXapt^avexac. 106 cuvepy6<;. 107 cuvxotvwvbq. 108 cuvr)Yep0T)Te. 
109 cuvecxaupa)p.at. 110 civ Xpcax<p. 


58 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


The meaning of huper 111 is “over” (the same 
word, in fact) like the Latin super. The meaning 
of “over” as “upper” appears in Acts 1:13, “the 
upper room” 112 and in Heb. 9:5 of the cherubim of 
glory “above 113 it” (the ark of the covenant). This 
is all that the preposition means of itself, but it is 
used in various kindred and resultant senses of 
“beyond” with the accusative or “in behalf of,” 
“instead of” with the ablative. But the original 
figure is always present. We have the very word 
“hyperbole” in English, though in a slightly differ¬ 
ent sense from the New Testament usage (Rom. 
7:13). In Rom. 8:37 Paul adds it to the verb to be 
victorious in his exultation and our ‘ ‘ more than con¬ 
querors” 114 is hardly adequate. In Phil. 2 :g “highly 
exalted” 115 falls short of the full idea, “exalted 
above (or beyond)” what Christ had before his 
Incarnation. In Rom. 8:26: (“the Spirit himself 
maketh intercession 116 for us”) the verb has a lively 
picture. The root means to happen along, to come 
up with, and en accents the notion of “on” one. 
Then huper shows the newcomer bending over one 
in trouble and pleading for him, interceding. It 
used to be said by superficial critics that Paul did 
not teach the substitutionary theory of the atone¬ 
ment because he used huper rather than anti. But 
the papyri, as is amply shown in Chapter III, give 
abundant examples of the use of huper when substi¬ 
tution is the plain idea. There never was any 
ground for such a hypercriticism of Paul’s usage 

111 ux£p. 112 tb uxeptpov. 113 &xep<£v<i) aiJTTjq. 114 uxepvtxdjpiev. 
115 uxepG^toaev. 116 uxcpevTuyx^ 1 - 


PICTURES IN PREPOSITIONS 


59 


which finds ample justification in ancient Greek. 
And the New Testament itself makes it as plain as 
a pikestaff as in John n 150, where substitution 117 is 
the whole point with Caiaphas. And then Gal. 
3:13 occurs in a context that absolutely compels the 
substitutionary view of the death of Christ. How¬ 
ever, as I have said elsewhere, I by no means be¬ 
lieve that this view is a complete statement of all 
that is true of the death of Christ for sinners. 

The word hupo 118 is really the positive form of 
the comparative huper. It is the Latin sub and the 
English “up.” It is found with the genitive (or 
ablative) and the accusative. The literal usage is 
still common as when Jesus saw Nathanael “under 
the fig tree,” 119 “under the bushel” or “under the 
bed” (Mark 4:21). In 1 Peter 2:21 the “exam¬ 
ple” 120 left by Christ is like a copy book when one 
writes on the lines below and tries to copy the first 
line. Too often, alas, we copy the line lowest down 
as we go down the page and at the bottom find our¬ 
selves a long way from the copy at the top. The 
same idea appears in another word for “example” 121 
• in John 13:15. The word for patience 122 means to 
remain under the particular strain. It calls for 
patience “to wait for” the slow fruition of God’s 
plans for us (Rom. 8:25). It is interesting to note 
our word “hypocrite.” 123 The word means to act 
under a mask and was in old Greek employed for 
actors who covered their faces. Then the word 
came to be used for any one who pretended to be 

117 dxo Gdcvfj 6xep tou Xaou. 113 6x6. 119 6x6 r?)v auxrjv. 

120 uxoYpapmdq. 121 6x65eiY^a. 122 uxojxovij. m uxoxpiT^q. 


60 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


what he was not. It is Christ’s terrible word for 
the Pharisees and its sting is felt to-day by all who 
pose for a piety that they do not possess. 

These examples are mere specimens of the wealth 
of meaning in the prepositions in the Greek New 
Testament. Do not skip the prepositions, what¬ 
ever else you skip. There is a picture in it for you 
and for your sermon if you have eyes to see it. 


Chapter V 


THE GREEK ARTICLE AND THE DEITY OF 

CHRIST 

The objections to the real Deity of Jesus Christ 
have taken various forms (philosophical, historical, 
theological, exegetical, grammatical). There are 
those who will not take Jesus as Lord of life and 
death because they cannot comprehend the mys¬ 
tery of the Incarnation and who refuse to admit the 
possibility of the union of God with man in the per¬ 
son of Jesus Christ. There are those who reject 
the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and 
seek to explain the record of his life and death as 
myth and legend. There are those who say that 
Jesus lived and was the noblest of men and was 
deified by Paul and John (or whoever wrote the 
Fourth Gospel) after the fashion of the Roman em¬ 
perors. There are those who accept the New Tes¬ 
tament writings as adequate interpretations of 
Christ and Christianity, but who say that Trinita- 
rianism is a misinterpretation of the New Testament. 
Jesus was, indeed, the Son of God, but only in the 
sense that all believers are, greater in degree, to be 
sure, but not in kind. 

And then the grammarians have had their say, 
pro and con, on this great subject. As early as 1798 

Granville Sharp wrote a monograph on the subject 

61 


62 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


entitled, “Remarks on the Uses of the Definitive 
Article in the Greek Text of the New Testament, 
containing many New Proofs of the Divinity of 
Christ, from Passages which are wrongly translated 
in the Common English Version.’' He laid down a 
“rule” (p. 3) which has become famous and the 
occasion of sharp contention, but which is still a 
sound and scientific principle: “When the copulative 
xa( connects two nouns of the same case [viz., nouns 
(either substantive or adjective, or participle) of 
personal description respecting office, dignity, affin¬ 
ity, or connection, and attributes, properties, or 
qualities, good or ill], if the article 6, or any of its 
cases precedes the first of the said nouns or parti¬ 
ciples and is not repeated before the second noun or 
participle, the latter always relates to the same per¬ 
son that is expressed or described by the first noun 
or participle: i.e., it denotes a farther description of 
the first named person.” 

Now it is not easy to lay down a universal prin¬ 
ciple of syntax, particularly in a language so rich and 
varied in significance as is the Greek. But, though 
Sharp’s principle was attacked, he held to it and 
affirms (p. 115) that though he had examined sev¬ 
eral thousand examples of the type, “the apostle 
and high priest of our confession Jesus” 1 (Heb. 3:1), 
he had never found an exception. He does not, 
however, claim (p. 6) that the principle applies to 
proper names or to the plural number. Proper 
names are definite without the article. Ellicott 
(Aids to Faith , p. 462) says: “The rule is sound in 

1 xbv dczdatoXov xocl apxtep^a &[AoXoy(a<; ^[xaiv ’Irjaouv. 


THE GREEK ARTICLE AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST 03 


principle, but in the case of proper names or quasi¬ 
proper names, cannot be safely pressed.” But 
Sharp did not apply it to proper names. Middleton 
followed Sharp in an able discussion, “The Doctrine 
of the Greek Article applied to the criticism and il¬ 
lustration of the N. T.” (1808). A few examples may 
suffice to show how the principle works. Take the 
common idiom, “the God and Father” 2 (Rom. 
15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:3; 11:31; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 
5:20; Phil. 4:20; 1 Thess. 1:3; 3:11, 13), all in Paul's 
Epistles, and add Rev. 1:6 and “the Lord and 
Father” (Jas. 1:27; 3:9). 

All this is plain sailing. Now take the precisely 
parallel idiom, “the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” 3 
in 2 Peter (2:20; 3:2). There is no dispute here 
that the author describes one and the same person 
by the two epithets with the one article. In 2 Pet. 
1:11 and 3:18 the pronoun “our” 4 comes after 
“Lord,” but that makes no difference in the idiom. 
It is “our Lord and Saviour,” and it is so translated 
in the English versions. But we have precisely the 
same idiom in 2 Pet. 1:1, “our God and Saviour 
Jesus Christ” 5 as the Canterbury Revision rightly 
has it and so Moffatt translates it. But the King 
James Version renders it “God and our Saviour 
Jesus Christ,” while the American Standard Ver¬ 
sion reads, “our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ” 
(note the insertion of the not in the Greek text) after 
the marginal rendering of the Canterbury Revision. 
Now why this confusion where the syntax is so 

2 b 0eb<; xal xartfjp. 3 6 x6pio<; xal aavrrjp Trjaouq Xptariq. 4 i)[Ltov. 
6 toG QeoG rjtxdtv xat ourtfj pog TnjaoG XpicxoG (or XpiaxoG ’Itjgou). 


64 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


simple? A strange timidity seized some of the trans¬ 
lators in the Jerusalem Chamber that is reproduced 
by the American Committee. There is no hesita¬ 
tion in translating John i:i as the text has it. Why 
boggle over 2 Pet. 1:1? 

The explanation is to be found in Winer’s Gram¬ 
mar (Thayer’s Edition, p. 130, W. F. Moulton’s, p. 
162), where the author seeks by indirection to break 
the force of Granville Sharp’s rule by saying that in 
2 Pet. 1:1, “there is not even a pronoun with 
cwTYjpoc;.” That is true, but it is quite beside the 
point. There is no pronoun with (jcozfjpoq in 2 Pet. 

1 :i 1, precisely the same idiom, where no one doubts 
the identity of “Lord and Saviour.’’ Why refuse 
to apply the same rule to 2 Pet. 1:1 that all admit, 
Winer included, to be true of 2 Pet. 1:11? There 
is no escape from the logic of the Greek article in 

2 Pet. 1:1. The idiom compels the translation, 
“our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.’’ One may 
agree or not with the author, but that is what he 
said and what he meant to say. The simple truth 
is that Winer’s anti-Trinitarian prejudice overruled 
his grammatical rectitude in his remark about 2 
Pet. 1 :i. The name of Winer was supreme in New 
Testament grammar for three generations and his 
lapse from the plain path on this point is responsible 
for the confusion of the scholars in the English Ver¬ 
sions on 2 Pet. I :i. But Schmiedel in his revision 
of Winer (p. 158) frankly admitted Winer’s error as 
to 2 Pet. 1:1: “Grammar demands that one person 
is meant.’’ Winer really gives the matter away in 
his comment on Tit. 2:13, where the Canterbury 


THE GREEK ARTICLE AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST 65 

Version again has it right: “Our great God and Sav¬ 
iour Jesus Christ.” 6 Here the King James Version 
and the American Standard Version have it: “The 
great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” The 
American committee here again are responsible for 
standing by the King James Version in the margin 
of the Canterbury Revision. Moffatt follows the 
King James Version, but adds “of” before “Sa¬ 
viour.” Winer (Winer-Moulton, p. 162) attacks the 
Sharp rule in Tit. 2:13 by arguing that “the article 
is omitted before awTYjpoq, because this word is de¬ 
fined by the genitive r^wv, and because the apposi- 
tive precedes the proper name.” But the appositive 
“ precedes the proper ” name in 2 Pet. 1:1, 11; 2:20; 
3:18, and in the same passages, except 2:20, we 
have also y][awv. The grammatical criterion is plain, 
and Winer knew it, for in a footnote he adds: “In 
the above remarks it was not my intention to deny 
that, in point of grammar , cwTYjpoc; may be regarded 
as a second predicate, jointly depending on the arti¬ 
cle tou; but the dogmatic conviction derived from 
Paul’s writings that this apostle cannot have called 
Christ the great God , induced me to show that there 
is no grammatical obstacle to our taking the clause 
xal atoTYjpoc;.... XpiaTou by itself, as referring to a 
second subject.” In the text above the footnote 
Winer had said: “Considerations derived from Paul’s 
system of doctrine lead me to believe that fjonYjpoq 
is not a second predicate, co-ordinate with 0soO, 
Christ being first called pisyac; 0so<;, and then cwtyjp.” 
Here, then, Winer gives the whole case away both 

6 toO pLey&Xou 6sou xort awTrjpo q ^)p.djv ’Ljaou Xptaxou. 


66 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


about Tit. 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1. The grammarian 
has nothing to do per se with the theology of the 
New Testament as I have insisted in my grammar. 7 
Wendland 8 challenged Winer on Titus 2:13, and 
considers it ‘‘an exegetical mistake” to find two per¬ 
sons in Paul’s sentence. Moulton ( Prolegomena , 
p. 84) cites papyri illustrations from the seventh 
century a.d., which “attest the translation, ‘our 
great God and Saviour’ as current among Greek¬ 
speaking Christians.” Moulton adds this pointed 
conclusion: “Familiarity with the everlasting apoth¬ 
eosis that flaunts itself in the papyri and inscrip¬ 
tions of Ptolemaic and Imperial times, lends strong 
support to Wendland’s contention that Christians, 
from the latter part of i/a.d. onward, deliberately 
annexed for their Divine Master the phraseology 
that was impiously arrogated to themselves by some 
of the worst of men.” 

It is plain, therefore, that Winer has exerted a 
pernicious influence, from the grammatical stand¬ 
point, on the interpretation of 2 Pet. 1 :i and Tit. 
2:13. Scholars who believed in the Deity of Christ 
have not wished to claim too much and to fly in 
the face of Winer, the great grammarian, for three 
generations. But Winer did not make out a sound 
case against Sharp’s principle as applied to 2 Pet. 

1 :i and Tit. 2:13. Sharp stands vindicated after 
all the dust has settled. We must let these passages 
mean what they want to mean regardless of our 
theories about the theology of the writers. 

7 Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical 
Research, p. 786. 8 Zeitschrift /. Neut-Wiss., V, 335 f. 


THE GREEK ARTICLE AND THE DEITY OF CHRIST 67 


There is no solid grammatical reason for one to 
hesitate to translate 2 Pet. 1:1, “our God and 
Saviour Jesus Christ,” and Tit. 2:13, “our great 
God and Saviour Christ Jesus.” It is true that thus 
we have two passages added to the side of the Trini¬ 
tarian argument to make up for the loss of 1 Tim. 
3:16 and 1 Jo. 57-8. Scholarship, real scholarship, 
seeks to find the truth. That is its reward. The 
Christian scholar finds the same joy in truth and he 
is not uneasy that the foundations will be destroyed. 
It is interesting to note also that in Acts 20:28 both 
the King James Version and the Canterbury Re¬ 
vision have “the church of God, which he purchased 
with his own ‘blood,’” whereas the American Stand¬ 
ard Version has “the church of the Lord” (so Mof- 
fatt). Here the difference is a matter of text, not 
of the article. But the two oldest and best manu¬ 
scripts (the Vatican and the Sinai tic) read “God,” 
which is almost certainly right. There is a good 
deal more that can be said concerning the Greek 
article and the Deity of Christ, but enough has been 
said concerning the crucial passages to show the part 
that the article plays in the argument. 

A word should be said concerning the use and 
non-use of the article in John 1:1, where a narrow 
path is safely followed by the author. “The Word 
was God.” 9 If both God and Word were articular, 
they would be coextensive and equally distributed 
and so interchangeable. But the separate person¬ 
ality of the Logos is affirmed by the construction 
used and Sabellianism is denied. If God were 

9 ©e&q rjv 6 \6yoq. 


68 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


articular and Logos non-articular, the affirmation 
would be that God was Logos, but not that the Logos 
was God. As it is, John asserts that in the Pre-in- 
carnate state the Logos was God, though the Father 
was greater than the Son (John 14:28). The Logos 
became flesh (1:14), and not the Father. But the 
Incarnate Logos was really “God only Begotten in 
the bosom of the Father” (1:18 correct text). 

In Rom. 915 the punctuation is in dispute and the 
article plays no decisive part in the meaning. West- 
cott and Hort punctuate the sentence so as to make 
God in apposition with Christ, as do the English 
Versions. This punctuation makes Paul apply the 
word God to Christ as we find it in John 1 :i and 
2 Pet. 1:1 and Tit. 2:13. In Col. 1:16-17 Paul 
treats Christ as Creator and Upholder of the Uni¬ 
verse. 


Chapter VI 


THE NEW TESTAMENT USE OF WITH 
HESITANT QUESTIONS IN THE INDICATIVE 
MODE 

Blass seems disturbed by the use of with 
questions in John 4:29; 7:26; 2115, where ^ “hardly 
lends itself to the meaning, ‘certainly not, I sup¬ 
pose”’ (Grammar of New Testament Greek, p. 254, 
note 2). Blass was a classicist and lays down the 
normal rule that ou is used where an affirmative 
answer is expected and ^r) where a negative answer 
is expected. It properly lays stress on the fact that 
“the negative used depends on the answer expected, 
and not on the actual answer given.” In other 
words, the negative used, whether ou or (jly), is de¬ 
termined by the mind of the questioner, not by that 
of the one who replies. If the questioner asks a 
rhetorical question and makes his own reply, the 
principle is the same. 

Moulton (. Prolegomena , p. 170, note) rightly ar¬ 
gues that the use of pif) or ixyjtc in hesitant questions 
“is not really inappropriate.” In independent sen¬ 
tences in the New Testament (jlyj is retained only in 
questions, but is quite frequent in this idiom. There 
are fifty-six such examples of (jlt) in the New Testa¬ 
ment, thirteen of one of (xyjxots, and one of 

tiYjTiYs, seventy-one in all. Twenty-two of the sev- 

69 


70 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


enty-one are in the Fourth Gospel and twenty-five 
in Paul’s Epistles, but only twelve in the Gospel of 
Luke and the Acts, according to Moulton and Ge- 
den’s Concordance. There are no instances in 
Hebrews, the Johannine Epistles and the Apocalypse, 
or the Petrine Epistles. 

Most of the examples are plain enough and reflect 
the clear feeling of the questioner. The idiom is 
commonest in the Gospels in the words of Jesus, 
where he makes a vehement or indignant or rhetori¬ 
cal appeal to his hearers. The same idiom occurs 
in parallel passages as in Matt. 7:9 f. (= Luke 
11 :ii), Matt. 9:15 (= Mark 2:19 = Luke 5:34), 
Matt. 11:23 (= Luke 10:15). Paul sometimes ex¬ 
presses his indignant denial by (if) yevotTo after the 
question with (if) as in Rom. 3:3; 9:14; 11:1, 11. 
Paul also uses ^ ou in a question where the 0d co¬ 
alesces with the verb and the (if) is the negative of 
the question as in Rom. 10:18, 19; 1 Cor. 9:4, 5. 
It is not easy to reproduce this idiom in English, 
though it is plain in the Greek. We may do it by 
the use of “fail” as in Rom. 10:18: “Did they fail to 
hear?” In 1 Cor. 12:29, 30, Paul has a string of 
questions with (if), but they are all according to form. 
In 1 Cor. 9:6 Paul uses ou — (if) where ou negatives 
the question and (if) the infinitive. It is slightly 
confusing in English, but clear in the Greek. In 
Romans 11:2 Paul uses oux arcwaaTo as the answer to 
(if) aTUtocrcrro; 

But the really troublesome hesitant questions oc¬ 
cur mainly in John’s Gospel. Here the solution lies 
in the psychology of the questioner rather than in the 


HESITANT QUESTIONS IN THE INDICATIVE MODE 71 

strictly grammatical form. We must always bear 
in mind that in actual speech people do not bother 
about rules of grammar. Language is a servant, 
not a master. We must watch for the light and 
shadow that play on the face and catch the tones 
of the voice if we wish to gather the real meaning of 
the speaker. Half at least of human speech is what 
is not said in words, but is expressed in the flash of 
fire from the eye and the lips. It is for this reason 
that written language is a poor substitute for the 
spoken word. There is power in the pen of the 
ready writer who has learned the art of delicate and 
accurate expression of thought. But in conversa¬ 
tion and in public address that is sincere there is the 
full play of the personality that far transcends mere 
words. 

Hence men have so much difficulty in interpreting 
written language. Lawyers higgle over the tech¬ 
nicalities of a will or a code of laws. Preachers be¬ 
come metaphysical hairsplitters in the explanation 
of a passage of Scripture because they fail to read 
between the lines and to visualize properly the at¬ 
mosphere of the saying. The historical imagination 
is essential to correct interpretation and to effective 
preaching. The preacher who sees men as trees 
walking will speak to an audience that does not see 
them at all. 

In John 4:12 we have the normal use of (att), ex¬ 
pecting the negative answer. ‘‘Art thou greater 
than our father Jacob?” The Samaritan woman 
thus expresses, if she used Greek (or John does it 
for her, if she used Aramaic), her surprise at Jesus 


72 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


for claiming to be able to give her “living water.” 
So far so good. But in 4:29 the same woman uses 
(jLTjTi in a question 1 that seems to call for an affirm¬ 
ative reply. She is speaking to her friends and 
neighbors in the city of Sychar and is seeking to 
interest them in Jesus, who has confessed himself 
to her as the Messiah both of the Jews and of the 
Samaritans (4:25 f). Apparently she ought to have 
employed oux or even ou^t, for she cannot wish to 
discredit the claims of Jesus, whom she has just 
accepted as the Messiah. But she does not employ 
oux, because to do so would have challenged the op¬ 
position of Samaritans to a Jew as Jesus was (cf. 4:9). 
Besides, if she had taken a public and positive stand 
for Jesus as the Messiah, many would have instantly 
assumed an antagonistic attitude before they had 
seen and heard him. She evidently wishes to avoid 
arousing needless antagonism and to excite curiosity 
by raising the question in a more or less doubtful 
and debatable form, without being dogmatic her¬ 
self. It is a dull interpreter who stumbles over this 
use of irrjTi by the Samaritan woman. It is merely 
interpretation by the rule of thumb to say that the 
Samaritan woman was disloyal to Jesus in using 
{jnfjTt, or that John misrepresents her real mood in so 
doing. It is a woman who is speaking, a woman 
who knows how to pique the interest of her neigh¬ 
bors in a great sensation. For it was the biggest 
sensation of the time if the Messiah was in reality 
near Sychar. The results justified her insight and 
her skill. The townsfolk went forth at once (<^t)X0ov) 

1 M-fyct out6<; eaxtv 6 Xptaro*;; 


HESITANT QUESTIONS IN THE INDICATIVE MODE 73 

and went out in a stream Oipxovto) towards Jacob’s 
Well, where Jesus was. In the end many believed 
on Jesus and said, “Now we believe not because 
of thy speaking: for we have heard for ourselves, and 
know that this is indeed the Saviour of the world” 
(4:42). By her subtle intuition she kept herself in 
the background and avoided controversy and won 
them to Jesus as the Messiah. All this is involved 
in her use of pLTjTt. The Revised Version renders 
the question thus: “Can this be the Christ?” That 
is a fair translation, for it avoids committing her to 
a negative response. It is a species of linguistic 
camouflage, this use of pif) when one declines to take 
a positive stand. It is not fear with the Samaritan 
woman, but shrewdness that leads to this form of 
inquiry. A similar excited and timid use of pif)T t 
occurs in Matt. 12:23. 

In John 7:26 we find pnfjxoTe employed by the 
rabble of Jerusalem, as reported or translated by 
John, to throw ridicule on the rulers in Jerusalem: 
“Can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is 
the Christ?” 2 It is irony or sarcasm, as shown by 
the continuance in verse 27: “Howbeit we know this 
man whence he is.” Here the syntax of ^yjtots is 
not so subtle as that of puj-rt in 4:29, but there is the 
quick flash of scorn at the rabbis for their cowardice 
in the actual presence of Jesus after their loud 
professions of courage before he came. One only 
needs nimble wit to see the beauty of the Greek 
idiom here. 

The lightning play of emotion in [if) in questions 

2 Mtqxote dcXT}0d><; eYvcoaav ol dcpxovxs? out6<; eaxtv 6 XpcaTdq. 


74 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


comes out finely in John 7145-52. When the officers 
returned to the Sanhedrin without Jesus, they were 
met with a sharp oux as to why they had not brought 
Jesus under arrest. On their reply the Pharisees 
sneered at them in two questions with “Are ye 
also led astray? Hath any of the rulers believed 
on him, or of the Pharisees?” Now Nicodemus in¬ 
terposes with a timid point of order or legal pro¬ 
cedure with pif): “Doth our law judge a man except 
it first hear from himself and know what he doeth?” 
This is an adroit question on the part of Nicodemus 
(cf. my Grammar of the Greek New Testament , 
p. 1168) and is in perfect form and syntax, but it 
rouses the Sanhedrin to fury for one of their own 
number to champion the cause of Jesus, even when 
he is in the right. So they storm at Nicodemus 
with “Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and see 
that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” They tear 
a passion to tatters and tell a falsehood to bolster 
their prejudices, for Galilee had produced prophets. 
They strongly suspect Nicodemus of affinities with 
the Galilean, though the form of the question for 
propriety’s sake has {xfj. They really mean ou 
though they use (x-f). See a similar scornful use of 
trrjTt in John 8:22, where the Pharisees scout the 
claims of Jesus, about going where they cannot 
come. They ask if he will kill himself, using nrj, 
though devoutly wishing that he would do so. This 
is quite in contrast to Pilate’s rage at the Jews, when 
he blurted out at Jesus (with (xyjtc): “Am I a Jew?” 

Once more in John 2115 there is nothing at all the 
matter with the use of txfjxt by Jesus: “Children, have 


HESITANT QUESTIONS IN THE INDICATIVE MODE 75 

ye aught to eat?” Clearly ou would have been too 
abrupt and harsh on the part of a stranger. So he 
delicately employs puqti. It is really more polite 
and courteous to use pltjtc, when one makes an in¬ 
quiry that implies asking a favor. It makes it easy 
for a negative answer without any strain in one’s 
relations. The very fact of such a question implies 
the possibility of an affirmative reply else it would 
not have been made at all. And yet the use of ^ 
or by no means compels a negative reply. In 
the case in John 21:5 the disciples promptly replied 
ou, for they had caught nothing all night. Now the 
way was clear for Jesus to offer his help, whereas 
before it might have seemed an impertinence. In 
English we manage it by saying: “You haven’t had 
breakfast, have you?” We employ two clauses to 
catch the delicate nuances of (xy) in Greek. 

So in John 18:17 the maid that kept the door said 
to Peter (using pnrj) : “Art thou also one of this man’s 
disciples?” She means that he is, but with a 
woman’s delicate insight implies that he is not, so 
as to give him a hole by which to slip out. And 
Peter slips out with a blunt oux dpi. But he was 
a disciple and the maid knew it, her syntax or 
John’s to the contrary notwithstanding. In 18:25 
the servants gather round Peter once more and use 
ply): “Art thou also one of his disciples?” Peter 
hotly retorts out. etpu', but he does not convince 
anyone, least of all himself. But now at last a kins¬ 
man of the man whose ear Peter had cut off in the 
garden stepped up to Peter and used, not png, but 
ouk: “Did not I see thee in the garden with him?” 


70 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


This ouk was like a pistol shot at Peter, and re¬ 
vealed in a flash his peril, and so he plunged deeper 
into the bog of denial and the cock crew. 

There is a striking use of in Matt. 26:22, 25, 
where in grief and amazement the disciples one by 
one began to ask: “Is it I, Lord?” It looks as if 
Judas hesitated till Jesus said: ‘‘But woe unto that 
man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! 
Good were it for that man if he had not been born.” 
Then Judas, knowing that Jesus knew, and not 
wishing the disciples to know, his purpose, brazenly 
asked (with ^.r jtc): “Is it I, Rabbi?” Judas had to 
use to save his face, but he did not save it, for 
Jesus gave the affirmative reply: ‘‘Thou has said.” 

So we see that in the interpretation of in hesi¬ 
tant questions we must go beyond mere rules of 
grammar into the principles of speech which have a 
psychological basis. Psychology is a rich field for 
the preacher, not only in the delivery of the mes¬ 
sage to living hearers, but also in catching on to the 
real meaning of the spoken or the written language 
which one interprets. One needs the mind of the 
Spirit of God if he is to understand the things of the 
human spirit. 


Chapter VII 


GRAMMAR AND PREACHING 

PAUL VS. PETER AND JOHN 

It may provoke a smile on many a preacher’s face 
when there is suggested any connection between 
grammar and preaching. Moody broke grammar 
and broke hearts, we are reminded. That is true, 
but he did not break hearts because he broke gram¬ 
mar. Plenty of preachers have broken grammar 
who have never broken hearts. Power in the 
preacher rests at bottom on the Master, the mes¬ 
sage, and the man. The power of Christ is medi¬ 
ated through the Holy Spirit and is at the service 
of all men. The message of the gospel is open to all 
who can apprehend it. We gain fresh glimpses of 
the word of life, but in essence it remains the same. 
The one variable quantity in preaching is the man’s 
personality. This is itself complex and includes 
what we call genius and magnetism for lack of more 
precise terms, for there is a subtle power in a real 
man that cannot be defined. God uses men of dif¬ 
fering gifts. “Now there are diversities of gifts, 
but the same Spirit” (i Cor. 12:4). But we must 
not confuse cause and effect. The Spirit of God 
blesses the work of different men, not because they 
are ignorant of Greek or English, but although they 

are ignorant. We can thank God for this fact. 

77 


78 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Knowledge ought to be power and ignorance is weak¬ 
ness. Knowledge may minister to pride and so be¬ 
come an element of weakness (i Cor. 8:1). God has 
always been able to take the weak things of the 
world and confound the strong (i Cor. 1:7). But 
we must not forget that Paul himself was a man of 
the schools with the best technical training of his 
day at Tarsus and Jerusalem. The chosen vessel of 
Christ for the conquest of the Roman Empire was 
the ablest mind of the age with Hebrew, Greek and 
Roman culture, and not the fishermen of Galilee, 
who had courage, but lacked the special scholastic 
equipment (Acts 4:13) that Paul possessed. Paul 
was a linguist, at home in Aramaic (Hebrew), in 
Greek, and probably in Latin, and did not need an 
interpreter like Mark for Peter. Even his oratorical 
impetuosity and intensity of feeling in Second Corin¬ 
thians did not betray him into the grammatical 
crudities seen in the Apocalypse. Paul wrote and 
spoke the vernacular Koine, but as an educated man 
in touch with the intellectual life of his time. I am 
not pleading that Paul was a professional stylist, as 
Blass has done. I do not believe that Paul con¬ 
sciously imitated the rhetoricians of Rhodes or the 
grammarians of Alexandria. He was not artificial, 
but real, in his learning. However, Paul knew the 
power in a word and in a phrase and was able to 
write 1 Cor. 13, the noblest prose poem on love in all 
literature. Man of genius that he was, he was also 
a man of the schools, as Peter and John were not. 
He became the great preacher, missionary, theo¬ 
logian of the ages. Linguistic learning is not all 


GRAMMAR AND PREACHING 


79 


that the preacher requires, but the supreme preacher 
like Paul does need it. Instance Alexander Mac- 
laren as a modern example of the scholarly preacher. 

NOT PLEADING A LOST CAUSE 

There is no denying that the drift to-day in edu¬ 
cational circles is heavily against the study of the 
classics. This undoubted fact by no means proves 
that the modern minister acts wisely when he ig¬ 
nores or neglects the Greek New Testament. There 
are fashions and fads in education as in other things. 
It remains to be seen whether the new utilitarian 
education will equal in value the old cultural stand¬ 
ards and ideals. There may be as much mental 
drill and gymnastics in the study of scientific details 
and sociological theories as in the study of the lan¬ 
guage and of the literature of the ancients. The 
modern topics demand a place, but the old term 
“humanities” for the classics is not without sig¬ 
nificance. They have had a refining and a human¬ 
izing influence beyond a doubt. In Dean West’s 
volume, The Value of the Classics , the most striking 
argument is that made by business men, captains of 
industry, who plead for the retention of Latin and 
Greek in the college curriculum on the ground that 
classical students make better leaders in business 
life than those without the humanities. And ex-Pres- 
ident Woodrow Wilson is quoted in a recent maga¬ 
zine as saying that, if he had his college course to go 
over, he would give more attention to the study of 
Greek. In his case he was not thinking of Greek 
as a pastime, as when Gladstone would write Greek 


80 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


hymns to relieve the tedium of dull speeches in the 
House of Commons, but rather as a means of sharp¬ 
ening his intellect for problems of statecraft. The 
best outcome of educational discipline is not the 
storing of facts, useful as that may be, but the 
training of one’s powers for instant service on de¬ 
mand. For this result the study of the Greek lan¬ 
guage claims preeminence. It is true that in the 
United States the high schools now seldom offer 
Greek. Here in Louisville my own son could not 
study Greek at the Male High School because it was 
not offered, though he did take it up at college. Even 
Oxford University, with the approval of Professor 
Gilbert Murray, has at last dropped compulsory 
Greek. One can now, alas, secure his B.A. in some 
colleges without either Greek or Latin. But if the 
study of the dead languages become itself dead in 
our colleges, the problem is still not settled for the 
minister of the gospel. 

THE MINISTER A SPECIALIST 

The physician has to study chemistry and physi¬ 
ology. Other men may or may not. The lawyer 
has to study his Blackstone. The preacher has to 
know his Bible or the people suffer the consequences 
of his ignorance, as in the case of the physician or the 
lawyer. The extreme in each instance is the quack 
who plays on the ignorance and prejudice of the 
public. It is true that the minister can learn a deal 
about his Bible from the English versions, many of 
which are most excellent. There is no excuse for 

any one to be ignorant of his English Bible, which 

# 


GRAMMAR AND PREACHING 


81 


has laid the foundation of our modern civilization. 
But the preacher lays claim to a superior knowledge 
of the New Testament. He undertakes to expound 
the message of the gospel to people who have access 
to the English translations, and many of these are 
his equal in general culture and mental ability. If 
he is to maintain the interest of such hearers, he 
must give them what they do not easily get by their 
own reading. It is not too much to say that, how¬ 
ever loyal laymen are to the pulpit, they yet consider 
it a piece of presumption for the preacher to take 
up the time of the audience with ill-digested thoughts. 
The beaten oil is none too good for any audience. 
Now the preacher can never get away from the fact 
that the New Testament was written in the Greek 
language of the first century a.d. The only way 
for him to become an expert in this literature of 
which he is an exponent by profession is to know it 
in the original. The difficulty of the problem is not 
to be considered. One will not tolerate such an ex¬ 
cuse in a lawyer or in a physician. The only al¬ 
ternative is to take what other scholars say without 
the power of forming an individual judgment. Some 
lawyers and physicians have to do this, but they 
are not the men that one wishes in a crisis. The 
preacher lets himself off too easily and asserts that 
he is too busy to learn his Greek Testament. In a 
word, he is too busy about other things to do the 
main thing, to learn his message and to tell it. 
Fairbairn says: “No man can be a theologian who 
is not a philologian. He who is no grammarian is 
no divine.” Melanchthon held that grammar was 


82 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the true theology, and Mathias Pasor argued that 
grammar was the key to all the sciences. Carlyle, 
when asked what he thought about the neglect of 
Hebrew and Greek by ministers, blurted out: “What! 
Your priests not know their sacred books!” 

THE SHOP AND THE SERMON 

One is familiar with the retort that the preacher 
must not be a doctor dry-as-dust. It is assumed 
that technicalities sap the life out of one’s spirit. 
The famous German professor who lamented on his 
death-bed that he had not devoted his whole time 
to the dative case is flaunted before one’s eyes. So 
the preacher proudly reminds us of the “Gram¬ 
marian’s Funeral,” and scouts “ Hoti's business” 
and all the other dead stuff while he preaches live 
sermons to moving audiences. “Grammar to the 
wolves,” he cries. No gradgrind business for him! 
He will be a preacher and not a scholar. He will 
leave scholarship to the men who cannot preach. 
Such a preacher seems to rejoice in the fact that he 
does not look into his Greek grammar, lexicon, or 
Testament, and not often into his commentary. 

It is not argued that the preacher should bring 
the dust and debris of the shop into the pulpit, only 
that the workman shall have a workshop. There is 
music in the ring of the hammer on the anvil when 
the sparks fly under the blows. Certainly the iron 
has to be struck while it is hot. No parade or dis¬ 
play of learning is called for. Results and not 
processes suit the pulpit. The non-theological audi¬ 
ence can usually tell when the sermon is the result 


GRAMMAR AND PREACHING 


83 


of real work. The glow is still in the product. 
There are men who study grammar and never learn 
how to read a language, men who cannot see the 
wood for the trees, who see in language only skele¬ 
tons and paradigms, who find no life in words, who 
use language to conceal thought, who have only the 
lumber of learning. These men create the impres¬ 
sion that scholarship is dry. Ignorance is the driest 
thing on earth. One does not become juicy by be¬ 
coming ignorant. That is a matter of tempera¬ 
ment. The mind that is awake and alert leaps with 
joy with every scholarly discovery that throws light 
on the thought of a passage. 

THE PREACHER A LINGUIST 

He is so by profession and he is debarred from 
unconcern about grammar. He is a student of 
language in the nature of the case. Just as the law¬ 
yer must know how to interpret phrases to make 
a will effective and to keep one from losing money, 
so the preacher must be able to expound the will of 
God to men that they may not lose their souls. The 
preacher only reveals his incompetence when he dis¬ 
claims being a student of language. He uses the 
English language and he must be understood in that 
tongue. Often he is not understood because he 
preaches in the language of the books while the 
audience thinks in the language of the street. The 
homely language of Spurgeon went home to men’s 
business and bosoms. Spurgeon was deficient in 
his college training, but he made himself at home 
in Greek and Hebrew that he might speak with 


84 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


first-hand knowledge. Language is man’s greatest 
discovery, or invention—or whatever it may be 
called. Nothing else save the gospel of Christ has 
played so great a r 61 e in human history as the use of 
language. It is folly for the preacher to affect a 
superiority to linguistic knowledge. There is no 
other key to literature save the knowledge of letters. 
Grammar is simply the history of human speech. 
It is the record of human thinking. The first thing 
to do with any passage in a book is to read it, to 
construe it. This has to be done by the elements of 
speech. One picks up a certain amount of English 
without much technical study. He hears English of 
a certain type spoken and he learns to speak that 
dialect. But he has to learn his dialect whether he 
gets it out of books or by hearing of the ear. The 
very preacher who glories in his own eloquence con¬ 
demns his lack of interest in the Greek New Testa¬ 
ment. He is a linguist by profession. 

EXACTNESS IN EXEGESIS 

It is pitiful to think how the Bible has been 
abused by men who did not know how to interpret 
it. Many a heresy has come from a misinterpreta¬ 
tion of Scripture. The worst heresy is a half truth. 
The literalist carries it to one extreme and the spec¬ 
ulative theorist to the other. The only cure for 
wrong criticism is right criticism. The people find 
themselves at the mercy of every new “ism” be¬ 
cause they are themselves so poorly instructed in the 
Bible. Sometimes the preacher does not know how 
to expose the subtle error before it is too late. There 


GRAMMAR AND PREACHING 


85 


is in some quarters a prejudice against all scholar¬ 
ship because of the vagaries of some, men who have 
not been able to be loyal to Christ and open to new 
learning. To a little man a little learning is a dan¬ 
gerous thing, Broadus used to say. Obscurantism 
is no answer to radicalism. The man who loves the 
light is not afraid of the light. No amount of toil is 
too great for the lover of the truth of God. The 
true preacher wishes to plant his feet on the solid 
rock of real learning. Grammatical exegesis pre¬ 
cedes the historical and the spiritual. A preacher 
with college and seminary training can hardly keep 
his self-respect if he does not have upon his study 
table a Greek Testament, a Greek lexicon, a Greek 
grammar, and several modern commentaries on the 
book that he is studying. He will have many other 
books, of course, but these are prime necessities if 
he plans to do serious work upon a page in the New 
Testament before he preaches upon it. Only thus 
can he be sure of his ground. Only thus can he be 
relatively as original as he ought to be. The con¬ 
tact of his mind with the Greek Testament is a fresh 
experience of first importance. The mind of the 
Spirit literally opens to his mind in a new and won¬ 
derful fashion. 

THE PREACHER A PSYCHOLOGIST 

The psychology of preaching is attracting fresh 
attention these days. Language itself has its psy¬ 
chological side. Grammar cannot be fully under¬ 
stood until one considers language as the expression 
of the thought in the mind. The thought shapes the 


86 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


mold into which it is cast. The very inflections 
and cases have a meaning. The Greek prepositions 
are instinct with life. There are pictures in Greek 
prepositions and sermons in Greek roots that leap 
out at one. The preacher has to know the mood of 
the audience as well as the mind of the spirit. He 
mediates the written word by the living word to the 
hearer. He must know his own heart and keep it 
ready for this spiritual transmutation. If a man is 
a wizard in words he will win hearts to attention and 
to service. Those men spoke like Jesus in depth of 
thought, simplicity, charm, and power of expression. 
Men, even rough soldiers, hung on his words, listen¬ 
ing. His enemies gathered round him to seize him, 
but their hands were palsied as they listened to his 
speech. The gift to pick the right word and drive it 
like a nail in a sure place is what makes a speaker 
effective. Hence the exact and prolonged study of 
language is of inestimable value for the preacher. 
Instead of scorning grammar he should devour it 
with avidity. 

A CLOSED GREEK TESTAMENT 

Imagine yourself with a Greek Testament, price¬ 
less treasure of the ages, and yet with no lexicon and 
no grammar and no teacher. Imagine yourself with¬ 
out even a copy of the Greek Testament of your own, 
and yet with a deathless passion to read for your¬ 
self this book that is the greatest not only in the 
Greek language but in all the world! Imagine your¬ 
self too poor to buy a copy of the Greek Testament 
and unable to go to school because you had to make 


GRAMMAR AND PREACHING 


87 


your living as a shepherd boy on the hills of Scot¬ 
land. Surely one would be excused for not learning 
to read the Greek Testament in such a case. One 
day in 1738 a youth of sixteen, John Brown, walked 
twenty-four miles to St. Andrews, and in his rough 
homespun clothes startled the shopman by asking 
him if he had a Greek Testament for sale. He took 
it eagerly and read a passage in the gospel of John, 
and proudly walked back to his sheep with the most 
precious book in all the world in his hand. This lad 
had borrowed a Greek Testament from a minister 
and at odd hours had made a grammar for himself 
slowly, like a new Rosetta Stone, in order that he 
might unlock this treasure for himself. One of the 
dearest treasures at St. Andrews to-day is John 
Brown’s Greek Testament. Grammar, self-made 
grammar, unlocked the closed Greek Testament for 
him and opened the door to the treasure of the ages. 
To-day thousands of ministers who have had Greek 
courses in college and seminary and who have Greek 
grammars and lexicons on their desks lack the en¬ 
ergy to hold themselves to a steady course of daily 
reading in the Greek Testament till it becomes one 
of the delights of life. One could wish that the pic¬ 
ture of John Brown, the shepherd lad, making his 
own grammar, might rise to put us all to shame and 
send us back to grammar and lexicon and Testament. 
For in the Greek Testament Jesus speaks to us with 
almost more of reality, Erasmus says, than if he stood 
by our side and we heard his audible voice. He spoke 
both in Greek and in Aramaic. Certainly we have 
some of his ipsissima verba and his very words are life. 


Chapter VIII 


SERMONS IN GREEK TENSES 

The purpose of this discussion is to emphasize and 
to illustrate the homiletical value of the Greek tenses 
in the New Testament. If there are sermons in 
stones and books in the running brooks, surely there 
are homiletical hints in delicate and precise shad¬ 
ings in the tenses if scientifically treated. Henry 
Drummond found biological science rich in spiritual 
significance. The modern minister should find 
grammatical research a gold mine for his soul and 
for the sermon. 

Language is the sign of intellectual life. Talk 
comes before books. Strangely enough our very 
word homiletics, the science of sermon making, goes 
back to conversation. Luke alone has the verb, 1 
though it is common from Homer’s day. The word 
means to be in a company or crowd and so to talk, 
to converse. The two disciples on the way to Em- 
maus (Luke 24:14) are pictured by this verb as 
communing with one another in earnest and ani¬ 
mated talk. The tense here is the imperfect in¬ 
dicative 2 and shows that the talk was going on 
(linear or durative action) at a lively rate when the 

1 (Luke 22:14, 15; Acts 20:11, 24:26) and auvo^t^w 

(Acts 10:27). Paul has &[xtXta (1 Cor. 15:33) and the Apocalypse 
(18:17) oixiXoq in the Textus Receptus. 2 <b^{Xouv. 

88 


SERMONS IN GREEK TENSES 


89 


stranger overtook them. Luke repeats the verb (the 
present infinitive, linear action again) in the next 
verse and adds another present infinitive 3 in the re¬ 
peated counter-questioning as they walked and 
talked and as the stranger walked along with them. 4 
But their eyes continued to be held 5 from recogniz¬ 
ing 6 him at all. The stranger interrupted their talk 
with a sudden question (aorist tense, verse 17) that 
accurately and in picturesque language described 
the talk to which he had been listening. ‘‘What are 
these words that you are flinging back and forth 7 
with one another as ye walk?” It is hard to imag¬ 
ine a more beautiful picture of conversation and one 
less like a modern sermon. Likewise in Acts 24:26 
the verb is used in the imperfect indicative 8 of the 
frequent talk that Felix had with Paul in the hope 
of securing money from him. But in Acts 20:11 we 
have the aorist participle 9 very much in the sense 
of a modern sermon. Paul’s long discourse 10 (20:7) 
was interrupted by the accident to the young man 
who fell asleep and fell out of the window. After 
restoring him to life Paul went on with his “talk” 
till break of day, evidently discourse with question 
and answer. The modern sermon is more in the 
nature of an address or deliverance without the 
variety found in conversation. Questions to-day 

3 auvtiQTeiv. 4 ouvexopeusxo auxot<;. Imperfect indicative again 
and so linear action. 6 expaxoGvxo. Imperfect indicative still. 
6 extyvwvat. Aorist (second) infinitive. Ingressive aorist, not 
even for an instant. 7 <£vxc(3<4XXexe. Present indicative of duration 
or linear action. This tense in the indicative is sometimes 
punctiliar, but not here. The preposition dvxt- shows the mutual 
exchange of words in conversation. 8 d>pdXei. 9 fc^tX-rjaaq. 
10 SteXdyexo. Imperfect indicative. 


90 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


during a sermon would usually be regarded as dis¬ 
turbances of divine worship. They would upset the 
preacher and make him forget his discourse and wake 
up the deacon before the sermon was over. But our 
word “homiletics” has come out of the atmosphere 
of conversation. The conversational style in preach¬ 
ing is certainly more in harmony with the original 
meaning of the word, whatever other virtues or 
defects it may possess. 

The Greek tense, as I have shown in the ninety 
pages devoted to the subject in my Grammar of the 
Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical 
Research (pp. 821-910), seizes upon the three 
kinds of action (punctiliar, linear, and state of com¬ 
pletion) present in some verb stems and preserves 
them in a wonderful way. One must drop any idea 
of time in connection with the Greek tense and think 
only of the kind of action. Then one will see the 
beauty of the Greek tense. The time element does 
occur in the indicative mode, but it is a secondary 
matter. The tenses are not confused in the Greek 
New Testament. On the other hand, they are 
employed with wonderful precision and clearness. 
The difficulty that modern men have with these 
tenses is that they come to them from the stand¬ 
point of the translation into English, French, Ger¬ 
man, or some other modern tongue. Unfortunately 
the Greek tenses do not run parallel with our mod¬ 
ern tenses. They correspond much more nearly to 
the tenses in the Sanskrit than to the Latin tenses, 
but they have their own genius and history. One 
must leave translation alone when he approaches a 


SERMONS IN GREEK TENSES 


91 


Greek tense and understand it as Greek before he 
undertakes to translate it. Often he will find it 
quite impossible to put into any English tense what 
the Greek tense carries. Certainly no English 
tense or all of them can express the variety of con¬ 
notations conveyed by the aorist indicative. With 
these ideas in mind it may be helpful to examine 
a few of the most striking instances of tenses in the 
Greek New Testament that are rich in meaning for 
the preacher. 

In general one may say that the aorist tense is the 
one to be expected unless there is reason for some 
other. The aorist treats the action as punctiliar, 
and that is the natural thing to do in narrative un¬ 
less there is special reason for accenting the linear 
idea or the state of completion. We are not, there¬ 
fore, to insist on the momentary aspect of the action 
when the aorist tense is used. Often in a summary 
manner the author gathers up in this tense a long 
series of acts that are treated as a single whole. 
Thus in Hebrews 5:8 the author says that Jesus, 
although Son of God, “learned obedience from what 
he suffered.” He employs two aorist indicatives, 11 
although there were many other instances in which 
Jesus thus learned besides the one in the Garden of 
Gethsemane, to which he immediately refers. The 
emphasis may be on the'climax of the process (effective 
aorist) as when Paul says: “I learned 12 to be con¬ 
tent in whatsoever circumstance I am” (Phil. 4:11). 
Paul did at length learn his lesson and hence the 
aorist tense. 


11 2(j.a0ev, exaOev. 


12 £{JLO0OV. 


92 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Sometimes it is rather the entrance into a condi¬ 
tion that the aorist presents (ingressive aorist). 
Thus in Mark 10:21 we read that Jesus, on looking 
at the rich young ruler, “fell in love 13 with him.” It 
was a case of love at first sight, and the heart of 
Jesus yearned for this young man who was in the 
grip of the money devil and did not know it. Even 
Jesus, alas, failed in this instance to shake the young 
man free from his vice. A striking example of the 
ingressive aorist appears in John 11:35, the shortest 
verse in the Bible, “Jesus wept.” More exactly it 
is this, “Jesus burst into tears,” 14 silent tears of 
sympathy in sorrow. In Luke 19:41 another verb 
is used that means usually to weep audibly as a 
child, but here also the ingressive aorist 15 occurs: 
“On seeing the city he fell to weeping audibly over 
it.” The cry took the form through the tears of 
Jesus of a lamentation over the fate of the city that 
he loved and that, in spite of this demonstration in 
his honor, was soon to kill him. The same ingressive 
idea is seen in John 1:14, when we read that “the 
Word became 16 flesh and dwelt 17 among us” (took 
up his abode among us, pitched his tent among us, 
tabernacled among us). But in John 1:18 it is 
probably rather the summary (constative) idea in 
“hath declared 18 him.” More exactly the idea 
seems to be that the Logos, the Son of God, God 

13 fjYaxiqaev. 14 e8<&xpuaev. 16 exXauaev. 16 iyivero. Aorist 
indicative. In contrast to the imperfect fjv in i:i when the 
eternal Preexistence of the Logos is stated, as He was face to 
face (xp6<;) with God in full fellowship and since he was God. 
17 ecxrjvwaev. Aorist indicative. 18 i^yrjaazo. See chapter on 
Tense (in my large Grammar ) for Aktionsart of the aorist 
(constative, ingressive, effective). 


SERMONS IN GREEK TENSES 


93 


only-begotten (correct text), the one who is in the 
bosom of the Father (and so qualified to reveal 
Him), that one of all others in the universe, “inter¬ 
preted” God. As the Word, both Reason and Ex¬ 
pression, He is the only adequate Interpretation 
(literally Exegesis) of the Father to men. He did so 
interpret God by the Incarnation and he does now so 
reveal Him and declare His glory. 

The original timelessness of the aorist tense often 
appears in the aorist indicative, where in spite of the 
augment as the sign of past time, no point is made 
of past time. This is clearly seen in the voice of the 
Father at the Baptism of the Son (Mark I :ii ; Matt. 
3:17; Luke 3:22): “Thou art my beloved Son; in 
thee I am well pleased.” 19 Here the Father ex¬ 
presses pleasure at the act of baptism to which the 
Son has submitted, but the satisfaction covers the 
whole relation between the Father and the beloved 
Son. It transcends all time and no English tense is 
an equivalent for this aorist indicative. We have 
the same tense of this verb in the Father’s words at 
the Transfiguration of Jesus (Matt. 17:5). The 
same usage occurs in Matthew 23:2: “The Scribes 
and the Pharisees sit 20 on Moses’ seat.” They took 
their seats long ago. They expect to occupy them 
forever. Jesus does not here challenge their right 
to be there in the place of authority. They are the 
authoritative teachers of Judaism. Only, alas, “they 
say and do not” (23:3). They misuse their high 
prerogatives for hypocritical pretense, as Jesus pro¬ 
ceeds to show with withering sarcasm. 

19 euBoxTjaa. 20 ex&0taav. 


94 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 

Often a sharp distinction is drawn between the 
aorist and other tenses in the same context. Thus 
in Matthew 25:5 we read of the ten virgins that 
“they all slumbered and slept.” 21 But this ren¬ 
dering ignores the fact that the first verb is in the 
aorist indicative and the second in the imperfect 
indicative. “They all fell to nodding and went on 
sleeping.” Every preacher has observed this ex¬ 
perience in some of his hearers. We see a like dis¬ 
tinction in John 5:8 and 9. Jesus said to the lame 
man: “Arise, take up 22 thy bed, and walk.” 23 He 
was to take up his bed at once as a single act (aorist 
imperative) and to go on walking (present impera¬ 
tive, linear action). In the result John keeps the 
same tenses: “He took up his bed (at once, aorist 
indicative 24 ) and went on walking ’ ’ (imperfect indic¬ 
ative). 25 Thus the whole picture is beautifully set 
before us. Certainly a vivid example of the im¬ 
perfect indicative is found in Luke 1:59, where 
“would have called” 26 is the inadequate rendering of 
the Revised Version. It is really interrupted ac¬ 
tion. The neighbors were trying to give the name 
of Zacharias to the babe on the eighth day, but 
Elizabeth, the mother, sharply interposed by say¬ 
ing: “Not so; but he shall be called John” (1:60). 
Even so the anxious friends refused to acquiesce 
until they had appealed to Zacharias, who wrote 
the name John on a tablet. The whole lively scene 
is set before us succinctly in the Greek tense. A 
like illustration of the conative imperfect indicative 

24 ripe. 


21 evuaxa^av xaaac xal ex60eu$ov. 
25 xeptexaxec. 26 exdXouv. 


22 apov. 


23 xeptxdcxet. 


SERMONS IN GREEK TENSES 


95 


occurs in Matt. 3:14: “But John would have hin¬ 
dered 27 him.” John was engaged in hindering Jesus 
from submitting to the ordinance of baptism on the 
ground that he himself stood in need of baptism at 
the hands of Jesus. But in this battle of the spir¬ 
itual giants Jesus had his way and John’s work of 
hindering was interrupted. The English rendering 
very poorly reproduces the idea of the Greek. 

The difference between the aorist and the present 
comes out in many ways. Thus in John 10:38 the 
English rendering fails to note that we have merely 
two tenses of the same verb: “that ye may know 
and understand.” 28 A more exact translation of 
the thought involved in the change of tense in the 
same verb thus repeated would be: “that ye may 
come to know and may keep on knowing.” Jesus is 
anxious that his hearers may grasp the idea and 
hold on to it that he and the Father are one. Even 
if on this occasion Jesus spoke in Aramaic, John has 
reproduced his idea of the distinction between these 
two tenses of the same verb. A failure to observe 
the difference between the aorist and the present 
subjunctive in Rom. 5:1 has led to much misap¬ 
prehension. Here the best and oldest Greek manu¬ 
scripts have the present subjunctive 29 instead of the 
present indicative. The present indicative (“we 

27 StextoXuev. Imperfect indicative. So linear action, not 
punctiliar. 28 Yva yvwts xal yivoxjxiqts. The aorist subjunctive is 
punctiliar and ingressive and the present subjunctive is linear 
action. Note also Paul’s use of <*0Xfj (present subjunctive) for 
the athlete and deirjan (aorist subjunctive) for a particular game. 
2 Tim. 2:5. 29 ex o>tJ.ev instead of exo[xev. The slurring of the 

distinction between o> and 0 does not explain the readings here. 


96 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


have”) gives no trouble and seems merely to state 
the result that follows from justification by faith: 
“We have peace with God.” The American Stand¬ 
ard Version recurs to this text of the Authorized 
Version though the Canterbury Revision has: “Let 
us have peace with God.” The objection to this 
text lies in the apparent superfluity of this exhorta¬ 
tion after “being therefore justified by faith.” But 
the trouble is not in the Greek text, but in the Eng¬ 
lish translation. The tautology would be present if 
Paul had used the aorist subjunctive 30 instead of 
the present subjunctive. Then he would have ex¬ 
pressed the idea of “making peace” by the ingressive 
aorist. But the present subjunctive is linear or 
durative action and Paul says: “Being therefore 
justified by faith, let us keep on enjoying peace 
with God.” It so happens that in Acts 9:31 Luke 
employs this very phrase in the imperfect indicative 
for the notion of enjoying peace: “So the church 
throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had 
peace, 31 being edified.” There is no superfluity in 
the exhortation as Paul means it by the tense em¬ 
ployed in the idiom. The rather it is in perfect 
harmony with the argument in Rom. 5:1-11. 

It is interesting to note the difference between the 
present indicative, the present subjunctive, the 
aorist subjunctive, and the future indicative in 
questions where the same verb is employed. In 
John 11:47 the Sanhedrin are pictured as perplexed 
and terrified at the power of Jesus with the people 
after the raising of Lazarus from the grave. They 

30 axw^ev instead of (the real text). 31 efyev elprjvtjv. 


SERMONS IN GREEK TENSES 


97 


met in solemn conclave and were saying to one an¬ 
other: “What are we doing 32 because this man is 
doing many signs?” Here the present indicative of 
linear action is pertinent and parallel to the similar 
tense used about Jesus (“is doing.”) 33 The point 
is that they are doing nothing while he is doing 
everything. It is a rhetorical question about the 
facts, expecting a negative answer, and hence the 
indicative mode is employed. It is a question about 
their present condition and hence the present tense 
is used rather than the future. We have an exam¬ 
ple of the future indicative in a rhetorical question 
in i Cor. 15:29: “Else what shall they do 34 that are 
baptized for the dead?” A good instance of the 
present subjunctive 35 appears in John 6:28. It is a 
deliberative question and the subjunctive mode is 
suitable to the puzzled attitude. It is a habit of 
life that the multitude have in mind rather than one 
single act: “What are we to do as a habit that we 
may keep working the works of God?” On the 
other hand, after the Baptist had denounced the 
smug hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Sadducees, the 
multitudes asked what specific thing they should 
“do” to prove their repentance: “What, then, are 
we to do?” (Luke 3:10). 36 They ask their question 
with the aorist subjunctive. The same construction 
occurs in the query of the publicans (3:12) and of 
the soldiers (3:14). The note of seriousness and 
personal interest is struck by the aorist tense, and 
John answers them with terrible frankness. 


32 xl X010U[A£V; 

36 xl ouv xoiYjara)tJ,ev; 


33 xotet 


34 xl xoirjaouacv; 


35 xl xocwtiev; 


98 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Paul makes a deft use of the present subjunctive 
in Rom. 6:i, and of the aorist subjunctive in 6:15. 
As he often does, he opens the argument with a 
rhetorical question in the future indicative: “What 
shall we say then?” 37 He has two points in mind 
as possible wrong deductions from his great climax 
at the end of Chapter 5, that grace immeasurably 
surpasses sin: “Where sin abounded, grace super- 
abounded.” No doubt the Judaizers had already 
drawn both of these inferences from Paul’s doctrine 
of grace as an argument for license. One inference 
is that Paul leaves the door open to a life of sin, the 
habit of sin, as a means of giving God a chance to 
display his grace. Paul puts it bluntly with the 
present subjunctive: “Are we to abide 38 in sin that 
grace may come to abound?” 39 Are we to live in 
sin as if at home in that state for such a pious sub¬ 
terfuge? Paul scouts the imputation and disproves 
it by the analogy of death and life as illustrated by 
baptism. But one more false alternative remains. 
The cynical Judaizer may argue that Paul at least 
allows occasional indulgence in sin, a lapse now and 
then as one of the privileges of grace. So Paul faces 
this phase of the subject with the aorist subjunctive: 
“Are we to commit an act of sin 40 because we are 
not under law, but under grace?” (Rom. 6:15). 
Paul evidently chooses the aorist tense to suit this 
idea. Once more he scouts the idea, but argues 

11 xi ouv epoG[xev; 38 !%t[x£vci)[xev. Present (linear) subjective 
(deliberative) the word means to remain and the tense is 
linear while ext- adds to the idea. 39 xXeovd<jfl. Ingressive 
aorist subjunctive. 40 &ixaprr)<jG>;Aev. Ingressive aorist, to fall 
into sin. 


SERMONS IN GREEK TENSES 


99 


powerfully against it by the illustration of slavery. 
Voluntary yielding to sin means becoming the slave 
of sin. The habit of sin begins with the first indul¬ 
gence. 

The infinitive offers some interesting examples of 
the difference between the aorist (punctiliar) and 
the present (linear) tenses. One of the best is in 
Acts 15:37 and 38, where the English renderings fail 
to note the point. Barnabas proposed to Paul that 
they take along John Mark on the second mission 
tour: “Barnabas was minded to take 41 with them 
John also, who was called Mark.” The set purpose 
of Barnabas comes out in the imperfect indicative 
and the modest proposal in the aorist infinitive as 
just this once. But Paul had memories of Perga 
in the first tour and he put his foot down on the 
suggestion with the demand 42 that they do “not 
take along 43 with them this man who withdrew 
from them from Pamphylia and went not with them 
to the work.” Paul uses the present infinitive be¬ 
cause of his vivid recollection of Mark’s desertion. 
He did not want to have a quitter again on his 
hands. It would be a constant strain on Paul’s 
nerves and patience. So there it was. A parox¬ 
ysm 44 (sharp contention) arose between Paul and 
Barnabas, as was so skilfully forecast by the two 
tenses of the infinitive. The present infinitive in 
1 John 3:9 assumes a doctrinal significance because 
of the sentence in verse 6: “Whosoever abideth in 
him sins 45 not.” Here an ideal of perfection is held 

41 epouXe-ro ouvicapaXapetv. 42 rj^ou. Note the imperfect indica¬ 
tive also. 43 auvrcapaXap$dvetv. 44 xapo£uapi6<;. 46 ou* ctpiapTdvec. 


100 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


up that has discouraged many a believer in Christ 
and made him wonder if after all he is a child of 
God because of weaknesses and shortcomings that 
beset him still. The present indicative, unlike the 
present subjunctive and infinitive, may be punc- 
tiliar as well as linear, for the indicative in present 
time has only this one tense for these two ideas. 
Sometimes it is clear that the action is linear as in 
Matt. 25:8, when the five foolish virgins cry: “Give 46 
to us of your oil, for our lamps are going out.” 47 
One can see the flickering, sputtering, smoking lamps. 
One may argue plausibly that we have linear action 
(the habit of sin) presented in 1 John 3:6 as in 
3:4 and 3:8, where the idea is plain in the clause: 
‘Tor the devil sins from the beginning.” He is a 
continual sinner. Now in 3:9 John says of the man 
who is begotten of God: “and he cannot go on sin¬ 
ning (as a habit like the devil), because he is begot¬ 
ten of God.” The English rendering “he cannot 
sin” fails to note that it is the present infinitive 48 
here and not the aorist. John does not here say 
that a child of God is not able to commit a single 
act of sin as the aorist infinitive would mean. John 
is refuting the Gnostic plea that one may lead a life 
of sin in the body without harm to the soul. That 
heresy still survives in various ways. 

Some instances of the perfect tense clamor for 
notice. In Paul’s great Christological passage in 
Col. 1:15-23, he twice employs the verb “create” 

46 B6ts. Aorist imperative. Urgent action at once. 47 <$lwuv- 
Tac. Present middle indicative. 48 d^apxdvetv, not dp.apxeiv 
(or dp.apxT]aat). 


SERMONS IN GREEK TENSES 


101 


in verse 16 of the universe (“the all things”) as made 
by Christ. But he uses first the aorist indicative 
and then the present perfect indicative for an ob¬ 
vious reason. He first says: “In him were all things 
created.” 49 Here in summary fashion Paul em¬ 
ploys the constative aorist indicative (passive) for 
the work of creation. Then he resumes the subject 
and repeats what he has said, but with the present 
perfect (passive) tense: 50 “All things have been 
created (stand in the state of creation) through him 
and unto him.” But Paul is not quite done with 
the supremacy of Christ in creation. He adds: 
“And in him all things consist” 51 (1:17) or “stand 
together” (another present perfect indicative). 
Christ made the universe and he holds the universe 
together in the hollow of his hand. 

Once more in 1 Cor. 15:4 Paul employs a present 
perfect indicative of the Resurrection 52 of Jesus in 
the midst of a long list of aorist indicatives. It was 
once held that this perfect was just used like an aorist, 
with no distinction in meaning. But it is not 
proven that any perfect in the New Testament has 
lost its real significance and is just like the aorist. 
Certainly there is no reason for taking it so here. 
Paul undoubtedly means to emphasize the fact that 
Jesus is still risen by the present perfect. He is the 
Risen Lord, as is shown by the very tense that is 
employed. There are many other instances of the 
vividness of the present perfect in the midst of other 
tenses, as in James 1:24; Rev. 5:7. But the subject, 
fascinating though it is, cannot be pursued further 

49 sxt((j0tq. 60 IxTtcTai. 61 cuv&rnjxsv. 62 


102 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


here. Suffice it to say that one misses much of the 
spirit of the New Testament unless he can go with 
the writers in the use of the Greek tenses. One fails 
to see Paul’s delicate courtesy and passionate love 
for his people in Rom. 9:3, unless he sees that in the 
use of the imperfect indicative Paul went as far as 
loyalty to Christ would let him go. He was on the 
point 53 of praying what he had no right to wish, 
but he drew back on the brink and could not pray 
to be accursed from Christ, even for the sake of his 
fellow Jews, whom he so greatly loved. So one 
might go on, but this presentation of the sermonic 
value of the Greek tenses in the New Testament may 
well close with Paul’s triumphant state of convic¬ 
tion 54 of the victory of the believers in Christ, who 
saw the triumph even in the hour of death when he 
cried: “It is finished” 55 (John 19:30). He saw the 
victory in the darkest hour of the universe, saw it in 
its final state. 

63 54 xix£tj[xoti. (Rom. 8 : 38 .) 66 Tre^Xsa-rat. Present 

perfect indicative passive. 


Chapter IX 


JOHN BROWN OF HADDINGTON OR LEARN¬ 
ING GREEK WITHOUT A TEACHER 

There are few stories more thrilling than the sim¬ 
ple narrative of John Brown of Haddington , as he 
came to be called. The facts are all given in the 
fascinating biography by Robert Mackenzie, pub¬ 
lished in 1918. The list of his important works 
cover three pages (347-9) and include A Dictionary 
of the Holy Bible , republished as late as 1868. The 
dates of his books run from 1758 to 1785. The Self- 
inter preting Bible was reissued in America in 1919, 
with 26 editions in all. “Brown's Bible ” came to be 
a treasure to ministers. For twenty years at Had¬ 
dington, Scotland, in connection with his pastorate, 
he acted as professor of theology to about thirty 
students each year, who came to sit at his feet. He 
sided with the Erskines and the United Presbyterian 
Church, which later in 1900 was united with the 
Free Church of Scotland as the United Free Church. 
But our interest in John Brown, who became the 
greatest preacher and scholar of his people during 
this period, lies in the marvellous zeal exhibited by 
him for acquiring knowledge. He was born in 1722 
in Carpow near Abernethy in Perthshire. His 
father was in winter a weaver of flax on the little 

103 


104 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


farm and a fisher of salmon in the summer. He had 
taught himself to read and had current religious 
literature in his little home. Thus the son formed 
a taste for good reading. It was the law that a 
schoolmaster should be appointed for every parish, 
but in the strife between Prelacy and Presbytery 
little regard was paid to the law. When a school 
was held, it might be a cowshed, a stable, a family 
vault, or a hovel. John Brown had a few months in 
a school like this, but the fire was kindled in his 
mind and soul that was to become a great light. He 
read what catechisms he could get. “My parents’ 
circumstances did not allow them to afford me any 
more, but a very few quarters at school, for reading, 
writing, and arithmetic, one month of which, with¬ 
out their allowance, I bestowed on Latin.” So he 
tells the pathetic story. 

But where did the Greek come in? “My father 
dying about the eleventh year of my age and my 
mother soon after, I was left a poor orphan, who had 
almost nothing to depend on, but the providence of 
God.” That and his own pluck and courage. He 
found shelter in a religious family, but had fever 
four times during the year and seemed a mere wisp 
of a boy. In his twelfth year he was converted. 
He became the herd-boy for John Ogilvie for several 
years on the sheep farm of Mieckle Bein. Ogilvie 
was an elder of the church at Abernethy, who had 
never learned to read. He was fond of having the 
shepherd boy read to him. He built a shelter on 
Colzie Hill for that purpose, where they could watch 
the sheep and have spiritual communings. 


JOHN BROWN OF HADDINGTON 


105 


Young John Brown borrowed what Latin books 
he could and used them so well that he mastered the 
language. He had two hours at noon each day for 
rest. But he used this time to go to his minister at 
Abemethy, Rev. Alexander Moncrieff, or to Rev. J. 
Johnstone, a minister at Arngask, several miles 
away. These set him tasks in Latin, which he 
finished with dispatch. 

Latin led to Greek, but in a curious way. He 
hesitated to ask help about the Greek, as it was not 
so commonly known as Latin. So he took an old 
Latin grammar, his copy of Ovid, and went to work 
to find out the Greek alphabet by the use of the 
proper names in the genealogies of Christ in Matthew 
and Luke. This was the key to unlock the door 
between Latin and Greek. He had borrowed a copy 
of the Greek New Testament and kept on his com¬ 
parative study till he learned the sounds of the Greek 
letters. He learned the meanings of the words by 
comparing short ones with the English translation. 
He made comparisons of the endings with the Latin 
and thus made a rough grammar for himself. Now 
and then he would ask questions of a Mr. Reid in 
the neighborhood. 

He became anxious to get for himself a copy of the 
Greek New Testament. It was twenty-four miles 
to St. Andrews, where there was a copy to be had. 
He got his friend, Henry Femey, to look after his 
flock, and set out one evening for St. Andrews and 
arrived there next morning. This was in 1738, and 
he was only sixteen. He was footsore and weary 
and found the book store of Alexander McCulloch. 


106 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Let us follow Mackenzie (pp. 26 f.): “Going in, he 
startled the shopman by asking for a Greek New 
Testament. He was a very raw-looking lad at the 
time, his clothes were rough, homespun, and ragged, 
and his feet were bare. ‘What would YOU do wi’ 
that book? You’ll no can read it,’ said the book¬ 
seller. Til try to read it,’ was the humble answer 
of the would-be purchaser. Meanwhile some of the 
professors had come into the shop, and, nearing the 
table, and surveying the youth, questioned him 
closely as to what he was, where he came from, and 
who had taught him. Then one of them, not un¬ 
likely Francis Pringle, then Professor of Greek, 
asked the bookseller to bring a Greek New Testa¬ 
ment, and throwing it down on the counter, said: 
‘Boy, if you can read that book, you shall have it 
for nothing.’ He took it up eagerly, read a passage 
to the astonishment of those in the shop, and 
marched out with the gift, so worthily won in tri¬ 
umph. By the afternoon, he was back at duty on 
the hills of Abernethy, studying his New Testament 
the while, in the midst of his flock.” This simple 
narrative is eloquent in its portrayal of the deter¬ 
mination of the poor shepherd boy of Abernethy to 
know the Greek New Testament. This very copy 
of the Greek New Testament, a precious heirloom, 
has been handed down to the fifth John Brown in 
lineal descent of Greenhill Place, Edinburgh. 

But there is a tragic sequel before the final tri¬ 
umph of young John Brown. There were some 
young men in Abernethy studying for the ministry 
who became jealous of the shepherd lad who had 


JOHN BROWN OF HADDINGTON 


107 


forged ahead of them in his knowledge of the Greek 
New Testament. One of them, William Moncrieff, 
son of the minister at Abernethy, said to him one 
day: “I’m sure the de’il has taught you some words.” 
This seemed to John Brown a jest, but it was an ex¬ 
pression of jealousy that led to serious consequences. 
John Brown added Hebrew to his Latin and Greek, 
and the suspicion of witchcraft grew apace. Even 
John Wesley in his Journal for May 25, 1768, ex¬ 
pressed sorrow that the English had given up belief 
in witchcraft, for “the giving up of witchcraft is, in 
effect, giving up the Bible.” In 1743 the ministers 
of the Secession in Scotland deplored the repeal by 
Parliament of the law against witchcraft for the 
punishment of witches. 

Unfortunately his pastor, Rev. Alexander Mon¬ 
crieff of Abernethy, gave heed to the charge of 
witchcraft as the explanation of John Brown’s knowl¬ 
edge of Greek. This slander followed young Brown 
for five years. On June 16, 1746, the elders and 
session of the church at Abernethy by unanimous 
vote gave John Brown a clear certificate of full mem¬ 
bership in the church; but even so Rev. Alexander 
Moncrieff, the pastor, refused to sign it and left it to 
the clerk of the session. The narrow preacher con¬ 
tinued to throw difficulties in the way of the bril¬ 
liant young scholar, who was struggling towards the 
light. Later in 1752, some members of the church 
at Abernethy were brought by Moncrieff before the 
session for going to hear John Brown, “a pretended 
minister.” But the young man fought his way on 
as pedler, soldier, schoolmaster, divinity student, 


108 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


and finally pastor at Haddington, theological pro¬ 
fessor and great scholar and author. 

It is a romantic story that puts to rout all the 
flimsy excuses of preachers to-day who excuse them¬ 
selves for ignorance of the Greek New Testament or 
for indifference and neglect after learning how to 
read it. Any man to-day can learn to read the 
Greek New Testament if he wants to do it. There 
are schools in plenty within easy reach of all. But 
if circumstances close one’s path to the school, there 
are books in plenty and cheap enough for all. No 
one to-day has to make his own grammar and lexicon 
of the Greek New Testament or go without a 
teacher. One can start with Davis’s Beginner's 
Grammar and Bagster’s Analytical Lexicon and go 
on to the mastery of the noblest of all languages 
and the greatest of all books. Indeed, to-day one 
actually hears of young ministers who rebel against 
having to study books that help them learn the 
Greek New Testament, and who regard their teachers 
as task-masters instead of helpers. The example of 
John Brown of Haddington ought to bring the blush 
of shame to every minister who lets his Greek New 
Testament lie unopened on his desk or who is too 
careless to consult the lexicon and the grammar that 
he may enrich his mind and refresh his soul with the 
rich stores in the Greek that no translation can 
open to him. Difficulties reveal heroes and cowards. 
Every war does precisely that. The Greek New 
Testament is a standing challenge to every preacher 
in the world. 


Chapter X 


THE GRAMMAR OF THE APOCALYPSE OF 

JOHN 

There is a constant challenge in the language of 
the Apocalypse of John quite apart from the inter¬ 
pretation of this remarkable book. The massive 
and monumental commentary on The Revelation of 
St. John , by Dr. R. H. Charles, has drawn fresh in¬ 
terest to the subject. Dr. Charles boldly affirms 
that “John the Seer used a unique style, the true 
character of which no Grammar of the New Testa¬ 
ment has as yet recognized” (p. x). “He remodeled 
its syntax freely, and created a Greek that is abso¬ 
lutely his own” (p. xi). Indeed, “to a certain ex¬ 
tent he creates a Greek Grammar of his own” (p. 
xxi). The judgment of Charles is that “the lin¬ 
guistic character of the Apocalypse is absolutely 
unique” (p. cxliii). “No literary document of the 
Greek world exhibits such a vast multitude of sole¬ 
cisms” {ibid.). So convinced is Charles of the 
uniqueness of the grammar of the Apocalypse that 
he has written a “Short Grammar” (pp. cxvii-clix). 
“This Greek I slowly mastered as I wrote and re¬ 
wrote my commentary chapter by chapter” (p. xi). 
The results of such long and laborious toil in a field 
where Dr. Charles is the acknowledged master, 

Jewish Apocalyptic, call for serious consideration. 

109 


110 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Too much cannot be said in praise of the work of Dr. 
Charles to throw light upon the language of the 
Apocalypse of John. 

What is the solution offered by Charles? ‘‘That 
he has set at defiance the grammarian and the usual 
rules of syntax is unquestionable, but he did not do 
so deliberately. He had no such intention. His 
object was to drive home his message with all the 
powers at his command, and this he does in some of 
the sublimest passages in all literature” (p. xxi). 
So, then, Charles does not charge John with being a 
deliberate grammatical iconoclast. “With such an 
object in view he had no thought of consistently 
committing breaches of Greek Syntax. How, then, 
is the unbridled license of his Greek constructions 
to be explained? The reason, as the present writer 
hopes to prove, is that while he wrote in Greek, he 
thought in Hebrew, and frequently translated He¬ 
brew idioms literally into Greek” (p. xxi). There 
is no inherent objection to this theory, and Charles 
produces many proofs that John had a Semitic 
mind. The Apocalypse is a network of Old Testa¬ 
ment phrases which he generally translated first 
hand, though sometimes he employed the Septua- 
gint version and also another, which was later re¬ 
vised by Theodotus (Jn. 21). We are now in a 
position to form a more intelligent conception of the 
Greek of the Septuagint since the work by Swete 
{Edition and Introduction) and the Grammar of 
Thackeray. The papyri discoveries throw this 
Hebraized translation Greek into its proper light in 
relation to the vernacular Koine. Charles is jus- 


THE GRAMMAR OF THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 111 


tified in correcting the over enthusiasm of James 
Hope Moulton for the vernacular Koine for he 
had said: ‘'Even the Greek of the Apocalypse itself 
does not seem to owe any of its blunders to ‘ Hebra¬ 
ism’” ( Prolegomena , pp. 8, 9). It is true that the 
non-literary papyri can show parallels for nearly 
every grammatical peculiarity in the Apocalypse, 
some with even greater profusion of variations from 
literary style. But Swete (. Apocalypse , p. cxxiv 
note) rightly observed that it was not fair to com¬ 
pare a literary document like the Apocalypse of 
John with the personal and business letters in the 
papyri from Egypt. I also pointed out that Moul¬ 
ton overstepped the mark in his sweeping statement 
against Hebraisms (see my Grammar of the Greek 
New Testament in the Light of Historical Research , 
pp. 90-93, 136, 413-416). Charles (p. cl, note) 
chides me with being too much under the influence 
of Moulton, and, like other grammarians, failing to 
recognize the number of the Hebraisms in the 
Apocalypse. 

It may be admitted at once that Charles has done 
great service by his careful study of the Hebraisms 
in the Apocalypse. One can see this readily with¬ 
out agreeing to the author’s theory of the author¬ 
ship of the Gospel and the Apocalypse. There is no 
evidence that Charles has said the last word on this 
subject. Indeed, his view that the work of John 
the Seer was edited by a man who “was a better 
Greek scholar than the author” (p. li) has its own 
difficulties. “But though a fair Greek scholar, the 
editor is very unintelligent” (p. li). Charles speaks 


112 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


of “his ignorance,” “the climax of his stupidity” 
(p. lii), and “the editor’s incompetence” (p. lv). 
One is inclined to view this hypothetical editor as 
the convenient dumping-ground for all the solecisms 
in the Apocalypse apart from the Hebraisms in spite 
of the editor’s better knowledge of Greek. But not 
so. “His (the Seer’s) solecistic style cannot be 
wholly explained from its Hebraistic coloring” (p. 
x). After giving a few striking Hebraisms after the 
fashion of the Septuagint (pp. cxlv-cxlix) Charles 
adds some solecisms that occur in vernacular Greek, 
like the nominativus pendens and the nominative in 
apposition to other cases, especially participial 
phrases (pp. cxlix-cl). Then Charles admits that 
some of the solecisms are designed by the Seer, like 
d%b 6 wv (Apoc. 1:4). “Our author knows perfectly 
the case that should follow ax6, but he refuses to 
inflect the divine name” (p. cliii). Then he finds 
a score of passages due to slips on the author’s part 
(cliii-cliv), some primitive corruptions due to acci¬ 
dent or to deliberate changes or interpretation 
(cliv-clvi). 

The net result is interesting beyond a doubt. 
Charles has made a most valuable contribution to 
the study of the language of the Apocalypse of John. 
He has shown that Moulton was wrong in his denial 
of Hebraisms in the Apocalypse, but he has not car¬ 
ried conviction in his theory of the dual authorship 
of the Apocalypse and the denial of the same author 
for the Fourth Gospel. That may turn out to be 
true. But there is nothing revolutionary in the 
linguistic work of Charles that compels belief in that 


|THE GRAMMAR OF THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN 113 

theory. As a matter of fact the problem of the 
author and of his language, apart from a larger 
Semitic influence in the Apocalypse than Moulton 
perceived, is very much where it was before Charles 
wrote. Dr. C. F. Burney now argues that the 
Fourth Gospel was written first in Aramaic. It is 
not certain that the Seer had an editor who knew 
Greek better than he did. The Seer may have 
written the whole book and so may have known 
Greek better than Charles allows. Charles admits 
a number of slips that the Seer would have corrected 
if he had revised his own work. But the known 
facts about the author are not different in essential 
respects from what we knew before. If John did not 
revise the Apocalypse after writing it in isolation 
and excitement in Patmos, and if he was a Jew who 
thought in Hebrew, often if not always, who freely 
used the Old Testament (Hebrew and Greek) and 
who did not use the literary Koine (only the vernac¬ 
ular), we have a conceivable picture of the facts as 
we now know them. 

It need not be proven that John the Seer was the 
Beloved Disciple of the Fourth Gospel and the 
Apostle John. But it still appears possible for this 
to be the case. The picture of Peter and John in 
Acts 4:13, “unlettered (aypa^auoO and private men 
(IhGnm)” not schoolmen or officials, certainly 
holds true of the author of the Apocalypse as Charles 
has found him. There is evidence that the Fourth 
Gospel was read by friends of the writer who en¬ 
dorsed his message (John 21:24, 25). Paul, in mo¬ 
ments of passion, tore grammar to tatters to pour 


114 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


out the thoughts that clamored for utterance (for 
instance, 2 Cor. 8:18-20; Gal. 214-8). The work and 
zeal of Charles command and deserve enthusiastic 
admiration, though one may not be able to agree 
that the author of the Apocalypse made a Greek 
grammar of his own or with Benson, that it is “a 
grammar of ungrammar.” The phenomena are not 
to be explained by a single dictum. They are com¬ 
plex as life is and call for still further patient research. 


Chapter XI 


THE ROMANCE OF ERASMUS’ GREEK NEW 

TESTAMENT 

In 1893-4 J- A. Froude, Regius Professor of Mod¬ 
ern History at Oxford, delivered lectures on Eras¬ 
mus. They were published as Life and Letters of 
Erasmus. These lectures tell the story in fascinating 
form of the publication (printed in 1514) of the 
Greek New Testament by Erasmus (circulated in 
a.d. 1516). Pope Leo X had encouraged Erasmus 
to publish the Greek New Testament. But he pub¬ 
lished the original Greek with a new Latin trans¬ 
lation with notes on special passages that hit off the 
corrupt lives of many of the clergy (pp. 120-2). 
“Never was volume more passionately devoured. 
A hundred thousand copies were soon sold in France 
alone. The fire spread, as it spread behind Sam¬ 
son’s foxes in the Philistines’ corn. The clergy’s 
skins were tender from long impunity. They shrieked 
from pulpit and platform, and made Europe ring 
with their clamour’’ (p. 127). The original Greek 
revealed in startling fashion the travesty of real 
Christianity current among the clergy. The En¬ 
comium Marice was attributed to Erasmus, but he 
denied it. “Universities, Cambridge and Oxford 
among them, forbade students to read Erasmus’s 
writings or booksellers to sell them’’ (p. 138). It 

115 


116 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


was not merely the notes that angered the priests, 
but the Greek itself was blamed for turning on the 
light. “See what comes of Greek,” the clergy cried. 
“Didn’t we always say so? We will have no 
Greek, we will stick to our Scotus and Aquinas” 
(p. 138). Froude adds: “And so the battle began 
between ignorance and intelligence, between the 
friends of darkness and the friends of light, which 
raged on till Luther spoke at Wittenberg, and the 
contest on languages was lost in larger issues” (p. 
138). Strange to say, the outcry was loudest in 
England, where Erasmus was personally known. 
Colet and Thomas More had been his friends. At 
Oxford there were two parties (the Greeks and the 
Trojans). Sir Thomas More denounces the leader 
of the Trojans: “He calls those who study Greek 
heretics. The teachers of Greek, he says, are full- 
grown devils, the learners of Greek are little devils” 
(p. 141). The Greek New Testament scattered 
over Europe by the printing press had produced a 
spiritual earthquake. The darkness began to van¬ 
ish from the world when the Greek New Testament 
was allowed to shed its light. It was vain for men 
to try to hide that light. Such a scampering the 
light from the Greek Testament caused in Europe. 
It is ever so. Jesus shines in the pages of the Greek 
New Testament. He shines there still for all who 
will take the trouble to see. He is the Light of the 
World. No obscurantist can hide that Light. No 
one can afford to neglect that Light. The Greek 
New Testament is still the Torchbearer of Light 
and Progress for the world. 


ROMANCE OF ERASMUS’ GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 117 


It is now over four hundred years since the Greek 
New Testament of Erasmus made such a sensation 
in Europe. Over a thousand editions of the Greek 
New Testament have since been printed. The new 
light on the language of the New Testament from 
the papyri discoveries is as romantic as the work of 
Erasmus. We are just beginning the most won¬ 
derful period in the study of the Greek New Testa¬ 
ment. Happy are those who are wise enough to 
use the new means within their grasp to learn the 
Word of God. 


Chapter XII 


BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER 

It is now twenty-eight years since John Albert 
Broadus died on March 16, 1895. It was felt then 
and said by many competent critics that one of the 
world’s greatest preachers had died. The world 
has never seemed the same to me since Broadus 
passed on. For ten years I was enthralled by the 
witchery of his matchless personality. For three 
years I was his student. For seven years I was his 
assistant and colleague and for part of the last year 
an inmate of his home. It was my sacred and sad 
privilege to see the passing of this prince in Israel. 
No man has ever stirred my nature as Broadus did 
in the classroom and in the pulpit. It has been my 
fortune to hear Beecher and Phillips Brooks, Mac- 
laren, Joseph Parker and Spurgeon, John Hall and 
Moody, John Clifford and David Lloyd George. At 
his best and in a congenial atmosphere Broadus was 
the equal of any man that I have ever heard. 

It may be that I am not a competent judge of 
Broadus’s powers as a man and minister because he 
put the stamp of his personality upon my very soul. 
It is not easy for me to write in an objective way 
concerning my Master in Christ and in the New 
Testament. My heart insists on being heard with 
every criticism of the intellect on this subject. For 

this reason in The Life and Letters of John A. 

118 


BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER 


119 


Broadus (1901, American Baptist Publication Soci¬ 
ety) I used his own letters and diaries as far as pos¬ 
sible, together with the correspondence of his com¬ 
peers and friends, that Broadus himself might stand 
before the reader in his own personality. I have 
never regretted that plan for the book. Each one 
who wishes to know Broadus can thus form his own 
opinion of his powers and his performances. And 
yet, when all is said, those of us who knew Broadus 
face to face, know that no book can reproduce the 
magnetism and grace of his presence. He had 
charm and courtesy and courage in a wondrous 
blend. He could win a little child or sway a vast 
throng with equal ease. I used to wonder why it 
was that one so richly endowed by nature and by 
grace could not live on at least for a century to 
hallow the world with his life. And yet Jesus was 
upon earth only thirty-three years at most. 

Broadus is still blessing the world. There are 
records that preserve his mind in Christ. True, he 
has left only one volume of sermons, Sermons and 
Addresses (Doran). These fail to catch the power 
of his public speech, but they do adequately portray 
his habits as a preacher. Dr. W. C. Wilkinson in 
his Modern Masters of Pulpit Eloquence (Funk and 
Wagnalls) pays the highest tribute to Broadus as 
a preacher. Dr. Wilkinson begins by saying: “I 
have named in my title a man with every natural 
endowment, every acquired accomplishment, ex¬ 
cept, perhaps, plenitude of physical power, to have 
become, had he been only a preacher, a preacher 
hardly second to any in the world.” That judg- 


120 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ment comes from one of the leading critics of preach¬ 
ing in the preceding generation, in a course of articles 
in The Homiletic Review . Dr. James P. Boyce, while 
President of the Southern Baptist Theological Sem¬ 
inary, used to say that one could not name the five 
greatest preachers in the world without naming 
Broadus. Dr. Wilkinson remarks in an article in 
The Seminary Magazine for May, 1895, that Broadus 
had beyond Alexander Maclaren the proper and 
distinctive oratoric endowment, and would have ex¬ 
celled him in “the brilliancy of immediate effect, in 
usefulness and fame due to mere eloquence in the 
pulpit,” had he given himself “with the same ap¬ 
proach to exclusiveness that Doctor Maclaren has 
done.” 

Beecher and Brooks, Maclaren and Spurgeon de¬ 
voted themselves exclusively to preaching, each in a 
cosmopolitan center. Broadus gave the greater 
part of his life to teaching. Yet it is believed by 
many that in actual preaching power he was the peer 
of these four princes of the pulpit and deserves to 
rank with them. George C. Lorimer has called 
Broadus the prince of the pulpit. The reason for 
this opinion lies in the tremendous impression that 
Broadus made all during his life upon the varied 
audiences to which he preached. He had no great 
platform like a metropolitan pulpit and no great 
daily to sound his praises. He did not publish 
numerous volumes of sermons. Taking his life as a 
whole, Wilkinson is right in saying, “Dr. Broadus is 
distinctively a scholar, distinctively a teacher, and 
besides, tho’ less distinctively, an author. This 


BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER 


121 


preaching work has been incidental, rather than 
principal, in his career.” And yet, on occasions 
when he did preach, no man in America was heard 
with more joyful enthusiasm than Broadus. Multi¬ 
tudes to-day cherish as a hallowed recollection the 
memory of the occasions when they had the privi¬ 
lege of hearing Broadus preach. 

One wishes that Broadus had published more of 
his sermons. He did not write out his sermons. He 
studied them with great care, not preaching old 
sermons without a couple of hours of hard work on 
each of them, but he did not take his sermon notes 
with him into the pulpit. He spoke extemporane¬ 
ously in preaching after long pondering of the theme 
and after profound research into the passage of 
Scripture under discussion. Dr. Broadus became 
the typical scholar in the pulpit and yet not a Doc¬ 
tor Dry-as-dust. He loved the liberty and spon¬ 
taneity of free speech in the pulpit, and would not 
even have an outline or a scrap of paper before him. 
He wished his mind, full of the theme, to play with 
the minds of the hearers. In lecturing he always 
had before him full notes and spoke freely from them. 
He drew this sharp distinction in his own practice 
between preaching and lecturing. But one result of 
this habit is that he left few sermons ready for the 
press. One summer, when he supplied the Calvary 
Baptist Church in New York City, he had a ste¬ 
nographer take down the sermons which he meant 
to publish as Calvary Sermons. But he did not do 
so, feeling that his sermons as reported did not do 
him justice. 


122 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


But there is much of Broadus in his other books. 
As an interpreter of Christ we see him at his best in 
his Commentary on Matthew (American Baptist 
Publication Society), which still has no rival save 
Plummer’s recent work on this Gospel. In this 
great work Broadus has frequent homiletical and 
practical notes, though the book is distinctly his¬ 
torical and critical. He had no patience with purely 
homiletical commentaries with ready-made outlines 
and anecdotes. After his death there was published 
a small Commentary on Mark (American Baptist 
Publication Society), the result of expositions for 
Sunday School teachers, originally published in 
The Sunday School Times. His “ Jesus of Nazareth” 
(Doran) is an able defense of the deity of Jesus 
Christ in the light of modern criticism. He deliv¬ 
ered this volume as a course of lectures to the Johns 
Hopkins University. His “ Harmony of the Gos¬ 
pels” has had some dozen editions, and is still in 
great demand (now thoroughly revised). This book 
was the first harmony to break away from the divi¬ 
sion of the ministry of Jesus by passovers. 

But it is Broadus’ Preparation and Delivery of 
Sermons that has given him his chief fame and 
most far-reaching influence (next to his work in the 
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). This fa¬ 
mous book, now in the 40th edition, was published 
in 1870, fifty-three years ago. It is not only the 
most widely used book on homiletics in the world, 
but it is still used in this country more than all other 
textbooks on the subject put together. The book 
grew out of the fact that when the Seminary re- 


BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER 


123 


opened after the Civil War, Broadus had only one 
student in Homiletics, and he was blind. Hence he 
taught him altogether by lectures, which he after¬ 
wards published. It is almost a miracle that such 
a book by a professor in a small Southern school in 
Greenville, S. C., in 1870, only five years after the 
war, should have met with the reception that it won. 
It leaped to the front and has held its place for over 
fifty years. Broadus had planned to incorporate 
his Yale Lectures on Preaching, which he did not 
publish, with this great volume. But death cut 
short his plan, though Dr. E. C. Dargan, his successor 
in the Chair of Homiletics (now with the Baptist 
Sunday School Board of Nashville, Tennessee), did 
revise the book with the help of the Yale Lectures. 
Lawyers and other public speakers have found the 
volume extremely helpful and use it constantly. In 
this book Broadus gave expression to his ideals in 
preaching, as he had formed them from study of the 
great masters of the art in all ages and as he had 
practiced the art himself. It is the ripe reflection 
of a scholar and a gifted preacher to men of all 
grades of culture. One knows that he is not reading 
the doctrinaire opinions of a man who is only able 
to tell others to do what he is not able to do himself. 
Broadus was already known all over the country as 
a preacher of rare charm and power. In a way this 
book reacted upon Broadus’s style as a preacher. 
He felt that he had to practice what he preached 
about preaching. 

It will be interesting to see what had gone into 
the making of Broadus as a preacher in 1870, when 


124 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons brought 
him national fame. He had not in early youth ex¬ 
pected to be a preacher. His father, Major Ed¬ 
mund Broadus, was a farmer and a politician in 
Virginia. But young Broadus heard good preach¬ 
ing in his boyhood in Culpeper County. Barnett 
Grimsley was his pastor and he was a man of real 
power in the pulpit, as were Cumberland George 
and H. W. Dodge, whom he used to hear. He had 
often considered whether it was his duty to be a 
minister, but had, as he thought, fully decided to be 
a physician and was planning to enter the University 
of Virginia as a medical student in the autumn of 
1846. But one Sunday in August at Upperville, in 
Fauquier County, he heard A. M. Poindexter, one of 
Virginia’s great preachers, at the Potomac District 
Association. The sermon was on “ Glorying in the 
Cross.” Broadus tells it himself in his “Memorial 
of A. M. Poindexter” ( Sermons and Addresses , p. 
397). He says that “he thought, that Sunday at 
Upperville, that he had never before imagined what 
preaching might be.” The next day Poindexter 
preached on the Parable of the Talents, with the 
result that with a choking voice young Broadus 
sought out his pastor and said, “Brother Grimsley, 
the question is decided. I must try to be a preacher.” 
Surely there is a bright star in the crown of A. M. 
Poindexter, who, under God, was the means of win¬ 
ning this young student to the ministry. 

What was Broadus’s preparation for the ministry? 
He came of preaching stock. The Broadduses of 
Caroline County (note the two d’s in the name, the 


BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER 


125 


one d being a peculiarity of Major Edmund Broadus 
and his descendants) had many preachers in their 
line, and some of them very able men, like Andrew 
Broaddus (Andrew the Great some called him)- 
John A. Broadus had two uncles who were ministers 
of mark, Wm. F. Broaddus and Andrew Broaddus. 
After all, the potentiality for preaching is wrapt up 
in the wonderful bundle of humanity that we call a 
child. One never knows with what fine stuff he is 
dealing when a young boy in his ’teens diffidently 
announces his purpose to be a minister of Jesus 
Christ. Certainly no one at the University of Vir¬ 
ginia in the autumn of 1846 had any idea that the 
young man from Culpeper, with the wistful face and 
the piercing eyes, was destined to be the University’s 
“greatest alumnus,” as Professor F. H. Smith will one 
day call him, or “the greatest American Baptist of 
the present (nineteenth) century,” as Dr. J. B. Haw¬ 
thorne will rank him. Of him Dr. W. H. Whitsitt 
will say in his address at the funeral of Broadus: 
“He was always first wherever he chose to stand at 
all. He was first among the Baptists of the South, 
of our entire country, of the world. In the eleva¬ 
tion of his character, the splendor of his genius, and 
the extent of his attainments, he towered above us 
all, almost above our conceptions.” He was first at 
the University of Virginia in the brilliancy of his 
scholarship. He revelled in the scholastic atmos¬ 
phere of this famous seat of learning which was a 
pioneer in our country in the introduction of the 
elective system of study and the use of the new 
methods of study from abroad. 


126 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Broadus had three really great teachers who left 
their mark upon him. E. H. Courtenay, the Pro¬ 
fessor of Mathematics, had the habit of patient repe¬ 
tition, when the student failed to understand a point. 
He would repeat slowly and in the same language. 
W. H. McGuffey, the Professor of Moral Philosophy, 
would try to get the student’s point of view and en¬ 
deavor to solve the difficulty in that way. Gessner 
Harrison, Professor of Ancient Languages, would 
turn the subject round and round and let his imag¬ 
ination play upon it from every angle till the student 
saw the light. In his teaching and in his preaching 
Broadus showed the stamp of each of these. He 
would follow now one method, now the other, and, 
if necessary, all three in order to make plain what 
he wished to say. There were already great tradi¬ 
tions at the University of Virginia, and young 
Broadus responded heartily to the appeal of this 
classic environment. It was soon evident that 
Broadus had the gift of brilliancy in books, but he 
did not let that take the place of hard work. He 
toiled at his lessons with the zeal of a very plodder, 
and that habit continued with him to the end. In 
classroom, in the pulpit, or on the platform, Broadus 
never trusted to the inspiration of the moment to 
the neglect of previous preparation. No man was 
more sensitive than he to the atmosphere of his 
audience, and he always looked eagerly at the start 
for the few sympathetic faces that are the joy of the 
preacher’s life. He spoke steadily to them till all 
were won. But the inspiration came after thor¬ 
ough preparation. Broadus had small patience with 


BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER 


127 


the student who trusted his genius and shirked his 
daily tasks. He had only scorn for the preacher 
who lowered the dignity of his calling by giving a 
flow of pretty language in the place of solid and 
great thoughts. 

There was no theological seminary in the South 
among Baptists in 1850, when Broadus was gradu¬ 
ated with the M.A. degree at the University of Vir¬ 
ginia. His father died just two days before he ob¬ 
tained his degree. His own health was poor as a 
result of his severe application to his books. In fact, 
Broadus was in more or less delicate health to the 
very end, though he lived to be sixty-eight years old. 
He soon learned that, if he would live long, he must 
take care of his body, which lacked the robust vigor 
of his intellect. But he did learn it and showed how 
a minister of rare gifts could do a stupendous amount 
of work and live a reasonably long life by careful 
attention to the needs of the body. One of the joys 
of my life as Broadus’s assistant was the frequent 
privilege of long walks about Louisville or a jaunt 
to one of the parks when he was full of talk and the 
spirit of abandon. Young Broadus after graduation 
spent a year in Fluvanna County teaching school in 
the home of General J. H. Cooke, as he had taught 
school before going to the University. During this 
year he did a great deal of hard study. 

But this genial retreat was not for long. There 
came a call to become assistant instructor in Greek 
under Gessner Harrison, one of whose daughters 
(Miss Maria Harrison) he had recently married. 
This attractive offer had in it the possibility of the 


128 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Professorship of Greek in case Dr. Harrison divided 
his Chair and retained the Latin. In point of fact 
this division was made, and Broadus succeeded so 
well as instructor in Greek that the Chair was of¬ 
fered him. He declined it because that would mean 
the practical abandonment of the ministry and he 
had set his heart upon preaching. Dr. Basil L. 
Gildersleeve, now the famous Emeritus Professor of 
Greek in Johns Hopkins University, was chosen for 
the position. He has told me himself that it was 
well known at the University of Virginia that he was 
only offered the Chair because Broadus declined it. 

The Baptist Church at Charlottesville had called 
Mr. Broadus as pastor in connection with his teach¬ 
ing in the University. This beginning of his work 
was a prophecy of his whole career. He was to be 
both teacher and preacher, a teaching preacher, a 
teacher of preachers, a man at home with the schol¬ 
ars of his time, and yet a popular preacher of great 
directness and winsomeness. Unconsciously he was 
being moulded into the model of the Master Teacher 
and Preacher of all times, our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Broadus threw himself enthusiastically into the work 
in the University and into the pulpit and pastorate 
in Charlottesville. Young and inexperienced as he 
was, it was soon evident that a man of mark was 
among them. But the time came when he had to 
decide whether to give up the University or the pul¬ 
pit in Charlottesville. He would have made a great 
professor of Greek on a par with Gildersleeve. As a 
matter of fact in the Seminary in after years he did 
become one of the greatest teachers of Greek of his 


BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER 


129 


time. And many can testify that they owe the chief 
impulse to their love for the Greek New Testament 
and to the study of any language to John A. Broadus. 
In simple truth this young giant had the making of 
several men in him. He himself used to say of 
Gladstone, that he was a Homeric scholar, a great 
churchman, and a transcendent statesman and ora¬ 
tor. To this day men differ as to the sphere in which 
Broadus excelled, whether as scholar, teacher, or 
preacher. But there can be no question that he de¬ 
cided rightly to choose the pastorate in Charlottes¬ 
ville. He believed profoundly in his own call to 
preach and his sense of duty to that call overbore 
his love for Greek and for teaching. 

As a matter of fact he was not completely severing 
his ties with the University life. Later for two years 
he was chaplain at the University, but meanwhile 
there were University professors in his audience. 
The students flocked to hear the eloquent young 
preacher who made no parade of his knowledge, but 
who gave them the beaten oil. He took up Hebrew 
and began systematic study of the Bible and held 
himself to rigorous habits of study. He made a 
course of Wednesday evening lectures on the Apostle 
Paul and then delivered a sermon on the Apostle 
Paul as a Preacher that is preserved in his Sermons 
and Addresses. He was sedulously endeavoring to 
master the problem of the preacher to a popular 
audience in a scholarly community. In 1854 he wrote 
an essay on the “Best Mode of Preparing and Deliver¬ 
ing Sermons” that is a prophecy of his “PREPARA¬ 
TION AND DELIVERY OF SERMONS” in 1870. 


130 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 

The preacher was growing in the solid foundations of 
real scholarship and practical life. 

The Baptist Church in Charlottesville was not a 
wealthy or an aristocratic body, but a church of the 
people. There has always been more or less of a 
breach between town and gown at Charlottesville. 
The University on the hill held aloof from the town 
of busy people below. But Broadus gathered both 
groups around him and the slaves occupied the gal¬ 
lery of the church. So each Sunday morning the 
young pastor faced a great crowd of townsfolk and 
country folk, of University students with professors 
and with plenty of children and of Negro slaves. 
He had to interest and instruct this diversified audi¬ 
ence. Broadus used to advise his students to study 
Butler’s Analogy and preach to the Negroes as the 
way to learn how to preach. That was literally his 
own method in his first and crucial pastorate. He 
had to give this audience high thinking in simple 
language. The ideas must be strong enough to grip 
University teachers and clear enough for the slaves 
to understand. Whimsical critics, like the children, 
must be held and omniscient critics, like the students, 
must be satisfied. The busy trades-people, unused 
to serious thinking, must be edified, and women 
must be comforted. Broadus accomplished this feat 
and made each group, not to say each individual, 
feel that every sermon was a special message to that 
class. 

Broadus never forgot that lesson, once mastered. 
He always used, at some point in the sermon, to 
speak directly to the children who loved to hear 


BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER 


131 


him. Once in Louisville a boy of ten slipped off 
from home and went to his church to hear Broadus 
preach a sermon. The subject was, “The Practical 
Aspect of the Trinity.” At the close, the youngster 
came up and said, “Dr. Broadus, that was a de¬ 
lightful sermon that you gave us.” Naturally 
Broadus was proud of having won the child’s atten¬ 
tion on such a theme. Broadus made a special study 
of sermons to children and was greatly concerned 
that preachers should have a ministry to children 
which, alas, is now so difficult when the children go 
home after church and cut the regular church serv¬ 
ices. But Broadus knew the child’s heart. He 
could tell a story charmingly, in a sermon or in the 
home. Broadus was sincerely fond of children and 
loved to have them in the congregation. He made 
a point to win their love and confidence and talked 
to them about their lessons and their games. One 
of his signatures in Kind Words, a Sunday-School 
paper in Greenville (now in Nashville), was J. Love- 
child. He loved to have his own children sit in the 
study while he worked. They could see his zeal 
in consulting commentaries, dictionaries, and 
grammars. 

The child is father of the man. The University 
and the Charlottesville pastorate gave the bent to 
the life and work of John A. Broadus. He was to be 
a profound and accurate student all his life. He 
was to be a teacher w T ho had learned how to open 
the Word of God and to open the minds of his 
hearers. He was to be a powerful preacher of the 
gospel of Christ. Of his pastorate in Charlottes- 


132 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ville Dr. A. E. Dickinson writes (The Seminary 
Magazine , April, 1895, P- 347 ) of students who 
heard him preach: “Whatever else, in after life, they 
may have forgotten of their University course, they 
have not forgotten the pastor of the Charlottesville 
Baptist Church. To this day one may hear gover¬ 
nors and senators and professors tell how they en¬ 
joyed Dr. Broadus’ preaching.” Of the University, 
Professor F. H. Smith says (The Seminary Magazine , 
April, 1895, p. 346): “The University of Virginia 
bends in grief over the grave of her greatest alum¬ 
nus. Had she done nothing more in all these years 
than give to the world John A. Broadus, there are 
many who think that her founder and her faithful 
professors had not labored in vain.” 

Men will always differ as to whether Broadus 
acted wisely in joining hands with James P. Boyce, 
Basil Manly, and William Williams in founding the 
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Green¬ 
ville, now for forty-six years in Louisville. He wisely 
at first declined to go, being unwilling to give up the 
active pastorate, but finally he yielded on the plea 
that he could do more for Christ by training other 
men to preach than by merely preaching himself. 
Jesus had done both. Certainly Southern Baptists 
stood in great need of such training. The new Con¬ 
vention of Southern Baptists, formed in 1845, had 
no general theological seminary. Broadus seemed 
the man of destiny for the place with his scholarly 
attainments and popular gifts as preacher. Boyce 
pleaded that he could not make the enterprise suc¬ 
ceed without Broadus. He was to have the Chairs 


BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER 


1SS 


of Interpretation of the New Testament (Greek and 
English classes) and of Homiletics. Thus the two 
sides of his nature that had been developed most 
were engaged in these two chairs. He undertook 
and carried to the end both of these great depart¬ 
ments. It is certain that no one, to-day, could do it. 
And yet it is hard to tell in which he most excelled, 
New Testament Interpretation or Homiletics. He 
was first in both. 

So his teaching reacted powerfully upon his later 
preaching and made it richer and riper. At bottom 
Broadus was a Greek specialist. He revelled in the 
Greek tenses, cases, prepositions. He brought to 
the teaching of the New Testament English the 
wealth of his technical Greek learning. Then in 
preaching he drew upon his linguistic lore and his¬ 
torical interpretation of Bible times and preached 
with an expert’s skill, for he was the master in the 
homiletical art. Add to all this the wealth of his 
natural endowments and growth in grace and you 
have the elements that went to the making of 
Broadus the preacher. He was not obtrusive with 
his great learning. He used it rather to make things 
simple. He abhorred bombast and pretense and 
display. He did not take the shop into the pulpit. 
There was no posing as a model for preachers. 

Broadus had no tricks of elocution. 'He had a 
rich and piercing voice that carried well, a voice that 
could be wondrously sympathetic and tender and 
that could cut like a knife in moments of indignation 
and denunciation. He sought to improve his voice 
by elocution. He did not always let his voice go 


134 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


except at times when in an explosive moment it had 
a very powerful effect. 

So Broadus made himself the greatest teacher of 
his generation in this country in the opinion of many 
who were familiar with American affairs. Some 
who had studied abroad maintained that they had 
not found his equal in the classroom, where he was 
a very king. But he had already become a great 
preacher and he was to become a greater one. Soon 
the shock of war closed the doors of the Seminary in 
Greenville. Necessity compelled Broadus to preach 
to country churches around Greenville, S. C. Happy 
churches these who had as their pastor the greatest 
Baptist preacher in the country. One Kentucky 
church, the Forks of Elkhorn, later had the same 
privilege. Broadus was faithful to these country 
churches, and did his best to help them with their 
problems. He used to say to his students that when 
they went to the town churches, they must be sure 
to take their best coat; but when they went to the 
country churches, they must take their best sermon. 
And yet not all the country folks relished Broadus’ 
preaching. It was without the “holy whine” or 
“sing-song” which some of them loved. One 
church in South Carolina after Broadus resigned, 
recalled “old Brother Robertson,” who had the 
sacred “whang-doodle,” much to the joy of some 
of the saints. One of the blessed arrangements 
about preaching is this, that somebody can and will 
enjoy the poorest sort of preaching. 

Broadus had a great experience in the summer of 
1863 as evangelist in Lee’s army. It was exciting 


BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER 


135 


work that greatly appealed to him, and Dr. J. Wm. 
Jones (Christ in the Camp ) thinks that Broadus did 
the best preaching of his life during these months 
with the soldiers. “I never heard him preach with 
such beautiful simplicity and thrilling power the old 
gospel that he loved so well.” Lee became fond of 
Broadus and was grateful for his preaching. 

But it was in Louisville that Broadus reached the 
zenith of his powers as a preacher. There in a great 
and growing city he became the outstanding minister 
of all denominations, and on his death was termed 
by the daily press of Louisville “our first citizen.” 
It was an event when Broadus preached in any 
church—Baptist, Disciple, Methodist, or Presby¬ 
terian. Great crowds flocked to hear him, particu¬ 
larly professional men, some of whom rarely went to 
church at all. These men found in Broadus a depth, 
a balance, a ripeness, an insight, a force, a sympa¬ 
thy, an uplift quite without a parallel. 

Already Broadus had become a favorite preacher 
in Northern cities like North Orange, N. J., where 
he had lifelong friends. He was in constant demand 
as supply in neighboring cities, for dedication ser¬ 
mons, for commencements, for summer vacations in 
New York and Chicago, Detroit and St. Louis. The 
strongest churches among the Baptists pulled at him 
for the pastorate, but he stuck to his task at great 
cost, and even, after the war, with real privation and 
suffering. The last sermon that Broadus preached 
was at the Vanderbilt University commencement in 
1894. s P°k e upon Moses. Memories of that 
sermon linger yet. Broadus was careful in his ded- 


136 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


ication services not to preach from passages about 
the temple, as he held strongly that our churches 
are kin to the synagogue and not to the temple. His 
favorite text for dedications was “God is a Spirit.” 
(See Sermons and Addresses.) 

Broadus was not only the pride of Louisville, but 
of American Baptists. Dr. Armitage, in his His¬ 
tory of the Baptists , placed Broadus’s picture on 
the outside cover as the representative Baptist 
preacher. But he belonged to all Christians and his 
ministry spread to all denominations who read his 
books and heard him preach or lecture at Northfield 
or Chautauqua or at some of the Y. M. C. A. Con¬ 
ferences. 

As a teacher Broadus drew men of other denom¬ 
inations to his class-room, men like Gross Alexander 
and J. J. Tigert for a year, Thornton Whaling and 
C. R. Hemphill, John R. Mott and Fletcher S. 
Brockman for a short while. 

Broadus employed the conversational style in 
preaching, with occasional bursts of passion or 
flights of imagination. One Baptist preacher of the 
florid style of oratory accused Broadus of ruining the 
preaching of Baptist preachers. His example and 
precepts undoubtedly exerted a powerful influence 
in moulding the public speaking of preachers in 
general. The conversational style is the ideal one, 
provided the speaker really has something to say. 
But it reveals with terrible fidelity the emptiness of 
a sermon that is only wind. 

Broadus had the gift of wit and humor, sympathy 
and pathos, irony and sarcasm. His wit was nimble 


BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER 


137 


and his humor kindly. The lights of fancy played 
around the subject and he kept all in a sympathetic 
mood. His sarcasm was biting at times, particularly 
in teaching, if a student undertook to “bluff” him 
without study of the lesson. Broadus used to say 
that no really great man was without a sense of 
humor. He had no aversion to making people smile 
during his preaching, only he did not use humor just 
to be funny. He drove the point home by his hu¬ 
mor. And tears often followed quickly upon the 
smile. Broadus’s use of illustrations was sparing, but 
he made them telling. He was a student of elo¬ 
quence and had a great lecture on Demosthenes. 
Not all people thought Broadus eloquent. Some 
thought him too simple in his language and lacking 
in the grand style. But Broadus went after the 
verdict. He made his appeal primarily to the will. 
He sought to influence the life far more than to 
tickle the emotions or to please the fancy by mo¬ 
mentary effervescence. 

Broadus laid great emphasis on the use of hymns 
and would spend a long time in selecting the proper 
hymns for the sermon. He aimed at harmony in 
the service. One of his pet abominations was the 
phrase, “the preliminary exercises,” as if prayer and 
praise to God and the reading of God’s Word were 
merely introductory to the performances of the 
preacher. He made a profound study of hymnology 
and often told the history of a hymn. There was 
the note of genuine piety in the preaching of Broadus 
that one could not imitate. His preaching was the 
expression of his life with God in Christ. 


138 THE MINISTER AND HIS GREEK NEW TESTAMENT 


Broadus loved good literature and read widely, 
particularly in history, in poetry, and in biography. 
He made a wise use of such knowledge to set people 
to reading good books. But most of all he loved 
the Bible and loved to teach it and to preach it. He 
had many famous sayings, some of which are pre¬ 
served in the Seminary Magazine. One of them was, 
“Be willing to let the Bible mean what it wants to 
mean.” “If you forget everything else I have told 
you, don’t forget to treat the Scriptures in a common- 
sense way.” “Some preachers get their texts from 
the Bible and their sermons from the newspapers.” 
“A man is known by the reading he chooses when 
he is tired.” “Gentlemen, when you preach, strike 
for a verdict.” “If a man fails to establish in early 
life habits such as will enable him to maintain fresh¬ 
ness in old age, he cannot supply the deficiency when 
the time comes. Preachers’ habits are soon formed.” 
“When you read the Bible, please persuade your¬ 
selves that it is worth your while.” “You talk just 
like a preacher.” “What you know, learn to know 
it straight.” Oh, the pith and the point of this won- 
drously wise preacher and teacher of preachers. 
The last lecture of his life was to the New Testament 
English class on Apollos. He pleaded with them to 
be “mighty in the Scriptures.” Broadus used to 
say, every year, in his last lecture to the class in 
Homiletics that he would have to look to them to do 
in their preaching what he had hoped to do in his 
own and what he had given up in order to teach 
them. He begged them to preach a bit better for 
his sake. And they did. And thousands upon 


BROADUS AS SCHOLAR AND PREACHER 


139 


thousands of preachers have preached because of 
John A. Broadus, who taught them in class-room or 
by text-book or by shining example the glory of the 
ministry and the dignity of preaching Christ. 

There is consummate art in the preaching of 
Broadus matched with the highest order of genius 
and the ripest scholarship. He had less passion, 
but more knowledge and diversity than Phillips 
Brooks. He had less oratory, but more simplicity 
and sympathy than Beecher. He had less brilliance, 
but more balance than Parker. Broadus was more 
like Spurgeon and Maclaren than any of the others. 
He lacked Spurgeon’s intensity of experience in a 
continued pastorate, but he surpassed Spurgeon in 
Biblical learning and general culture. Broadus had 
the homely wit of Spurgeon and the scholarship of 
Maclaren with all of Maclaren’s charm. His true 
place is with these great preachers of the second half 
of the nineteenth century. The pity of it all is 
that so few of his sermons are preserved, but the 
power of the man’s personality is immortal. 


tTHE END 



































Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-21H 












































